[TEPaul]

"-  You mention that in "that first summer" they had started a subscription for seeds to develop the ridge.   Isn't this yet more evidence that the course was changed from the original nine to what you claim was the "long nine" by 1895, and that the legend about Leeds beginning work on the long nine in 1896 is incorrect?"


No, not at all; it is not incorrect that Leeds developed the Long Nine and the holes on the ridge in 1896. Weeks mentioned that the seeding and devlopment of those uphill (ridge) holes began in the summer of 1894 but that those holes were not created and completed for two years and apparently in play until the end of 1896 or perhaps the beginning 1897 when the Long Nine began to be used instead of the original 1894 nine. This was when those three holes mostly somewhere on Dr. S.A. Hopkins's property on the original 1894 nine were taken out of play and replaced by the three new holes on the ridge (#7, #8, #9 on the Long Nine and #14, #15 and #16 on Leeds's eighteen hole course in 1900 and today).

The differences between the 1894 nine and the Long Nine are worth noting as that august golf course architect and past president of the ASGCA, Jeffrey Brauer, has suspected and stated even though you and MacWood have failed to contemplate that and/or admit it (apparently because you are both trying to make Myopia look more like it should be attributed to Campbell, not Leeds). And this does not even take into consideration all the numerous changes made when Leeds developed the eighteen hole course that came into play in 1900. These are the true facts of the architectural evolution of Myopia Hunt Club and they are indisputable no matter how hard you and MacWood try to minimize, deflect and/or ignore them.

[DMoriarty]

Both they and a number of their close friends in more or less the next decade went on to revolutionize golf architecture in America or at least in Massachussets. These were men of high intelligence and even higher education;   they were men of ideas and action and the last thing they did was wait around for some working stiff from Scotland who was best known for losing an insurmountable lead in a British Open to show up on their shores to tell THEM what to do about anything!

TEPaul, whether or not in jest, I think this paragraph pretty much encapsulates your attitude toward early golf course design, doesn't it?

But how, if you have have seen Myopia's records, could you get the identity of Myopia's Club Secretary WRONG?  

For that matter, how could Weeks have gotten it wrong?  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul, whether or not in jest, I think this paragraph pretty much encapsulates your attitude toward early golf course design, doesn't it?"



No Sir, whether or not in jest, I think it (that paragraph) pretty much encapsulates THEIR attitude at Myopia back then towards early golf course design!

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul, You haven't seen any actual club records, have you?

[Tom MacWood]

No, not at all; it is not incorrect that Leeds developed the Long Nine and the holes on the ridge in 1896. Weeks mentioned that the seeding and devlopment of those uphill (ridge) holes began in the summer of 1894 but that those holes were not created and completed for two years and apparently in play until the end of 1896 or perhaps the beginning 1897 when the Long Nine began to be used instead of the original 1894 nine. This was when those three holes mostly somewhere on Dr. S.A. Hopkins's property on the original 1894 nine were taken out of play and replaced by the three new holes on the ridge (#7, #8, #9 on the Long Nine and #14, #15 and #16 on Leeds's eighteen hole course in 1900 and today).

"Was the original nine changed prior to 1896?"

Tom MacWood:

No, the original 1894 nine was not changed PRIOR to 1896; it begun to be changed in 1896 or shortly thereafter when Herbert C. Leeds came from the CC of Brookline to Myopia Hunt club and was asked to change it; which he did into what has long been called the "Long Nine" on which the 1898 US Open was played; the first US Open that was separated in time and place from the US Amateur!

Actually, the primary reason the US Open was separated in time and place from the US Amateur in 1898 is historically very, very interesting. Can you imagine what that primary reason was, Tom MacWood? Has your "independent" research ever given you any inclination into why that may've been?  

The original 1894 nine hole course at Myopia was originally routed and designed by three "amateur/sportsmen" Myopia Hunt Club members;  R.M. (Bud) Appleton, "Squire" Merrill and A.P Gardner. That original nine was reworked by Herbert C. Leeds and the Golf Committee in 1896-97 and became known as the "Long Nine" over which the 1898 US Open was played. In 1899 and 1900 Leeds increased the course to eighteen holes and by 1908 three more US Opens had been played on it. The Myopia course today is remarkably similar to that latter eighteen hole course of the first decade of the 20th century.

Some or at least one on here may ASSUME that Campbell had something to do with Leeds's "Long Nine" which was devoloped between 1896 and 1898 simply because he was there for a single year (1896) but the club records show nothing of the kind. That attribution has always been famously given to Herbert C. Leeds by the club and others right from that time (1896) and I see no reason from those Myopia contemporaneous club records to indicate the club was lying about any of it or trying to create a "legend" of Leeds at that time or at any other time. It's simply a fact of American golf architecture's history.

He was just given that job by Myopia, he accepted it in 1896 and he dedicated himself to it for the next 20-30 years.

It does not say much particularly specific about White and Myopia architecturally but when White was there, probably in or around 1896, was the same time Herbert Leeds came to Myopia as a member from TCC and when he basically took over total control of the architectural development of the course. White was the combined pro/greenskeeper at that time and it seems completely logical to assume that Robert White worked hand in hand with Leeds on the development and improvement of the course around that time into what would become known as "The Long Nine" on which was held Myopia's first US Open in 1898.

It seems like TEP's story keeps changing and evolving with time. That is somewhat surprising since he had access to the board minutes and one would assume those records don't change.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
Why did it take them three years to build three holes? When in 1896 did Leeds join Myopia?

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Why did it take them three years to build three holes? When in 1896 did Leeds join Myopia?"



Tom MacWood:

Weeks said it took two years from 1894 to do the holes on the ridge. I don't know why it took them two years. I suppose there could be all kinds of reasons such as they had three other holes on Dr Hopkins's property that made up a nine in play during that time that they gave up when they put the three holes on the ridge into play with the Long Nine. Why did it take Crump five years without eighteen holes in play at Pine Valley? One reason was it was so easy to play the first four again that totalled eighteen and be right back at the clubhouse. There are all kinds of reasons for things given individual circumstances.

I do not know the exact date that Leeds joined Myopia.

[Niall C]

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.

Tom

I wasn't in any way suggesting that Myopia today is a Willie Campbell golf course. The point I was making to Mike was not about design attribution as such, it was about Mike assuming that the club records have all the information and that if they didn't mention something then it couldn't have been worthwhile mentioning. In that respect the Troon example is apt, unless of course you think that the fact that probably the most famous gca ever designed the course which is still in existence and on which one of the all time legends of the game famously came a cropper in the clubs first hosting of the greatest golf tournament in the world (yes, I'm biased) isn't worth noting.

The other thing I think needs looking at is the assumption by some that courses weren't laid out one day and played on the next back at that time. My impression, and happy to be proved wrong, is that courses were fairly rough and ready back then, and that foot traffic was one way of helping them into shape therefore there I'm not sure the concept of the course having to be finished to some high standard to be ready for play was about back then, but as I say I could be wrong.

Niall

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

Have you seen the Myopia's administrative records?  

If you have, then how come you don't know who the Club Secretary was?  

[TEPaul]

Niall:

I do understand what you mean with Troon and Mackenzie and the club not recognizing that or not recognizing it well enough. Something that substantial from an architect, and particularly one of Mackenzie's stature, that is so much of the course today sure is a significant historical oversight. But the circumstances of Campbell and Myopia are entirely different and not recognizing him back then or now is not historically significant, in my opinion or apparently in Myopia's. Campbell probably didn't spend more than a day or two working with Myopia's original nine (that is some ways did not last long) in 1894 but Leeds spent over twenty years working with the course, first the Long Nine and later and much longer, the eighteen hole course.

[DMoriarty]

Niall, I agree with you about how soon they played on these very early courses.  To compare it to how things are done today makes no sense at all.

I do understand what you mean with Troon and Mackenzie and the club not recognizing that or not recognizing it well enough. Something that substantial from an architect, and particularly one of Mackenzie's stature, that is so much of the course today sure is a significant historical oversight. But the circumstances of Campbell and Myopia are entirely different and not recognizing him back then or now is not historically significant, in my opinion or apparently in Myopia's.

Not historically significant?  Aren't you the one who claims that Myopia was the first great American golf course?  Aren't you the one who claims that little has changed since the course was expanded to 18 holes?

By your account aren't their something like five or six of the original holes on that 18?   And if the original 9 was as I suspect it was, then as many as 8 of these holes may be still be in use (with some changes over the years of course.) And now that you have noted that they were already planning on adding the ridge holes in 1894 we cannot take Campbell out of the mix on those either.

At the very least, it is of sufficient historical interest to try and figure it all out.  

Campbell probably didn't spend more than a day or two working with Myopia's original nine (that is some ways did not last long) in 1894 but Leeds spent over twenty years working with the course, first the Long Nine and later and much longer, the eighteen hole course.

This is another snippet that exemplifies your approach to these things.   You care more about who put in the time over they years rather than who came up with the golf holes.   But coming up with the golf holes is the major component of designing a golf course.   And it doesn't matter it it takes 2 days or 20 years.  

By the way, do the "records" say that he probably didn't spend more than a day or two there?  

_____________________

TEPaul, my questions are not at all complicated or inappropriate.   Why won't you answer them?  
Have you seen the Myopia's administrative records, circa 1894?  
If you have, then why don't know the identity of the Club Secretary?  

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer, Mike Cirba, Phillip Young,

All of your theories are based primarily on blind faith in TEPaul's claim that he has seen Myopia's administrative records and that he has accurately conveyed the information within.  Yet it is becoming more and more apparent that something is amiss here.    

Aren't you guys at all curious why TEPaul has claimed to have seen the administrative records of Myopia Hunt, yet he does not even know the identity of the Club Secretary who would have created those very records?  Correction, it wasn't as if he didn't know, he has been claiming that the Secretary was S. Dacre Bush.  

Or is it that the 1897 account written by a club member is inaccurate as to the officers of the club?   And if so, why wasn't this corrected in his 1898 edition?   After all it was distributed amongst the members.

And there is plenty of other things askew.  How could he not know the exact date of the Executive Meeting?  Club's and corporations did not have annual meetings 'sometime in March,' they had them on specific days.   Or the exact persons who were appointed to the various committees?  If these are administrative records, he ought to be able to tell us about the administration of the club, but he cannot.   And there is the Robert White issue as well as the issue of TEPaul knowing for certain thing about which Weeks could only speculate.

TEPaul apparently will not explain himself, but you guys are they one's relying on his every word.  So what is going on here?   Shouldn't he have known these things if he had access to the records to which he claims he has access.

[Mike Cirba]

Niall,

I can certainly understand how a course on sandy links land could be ready in a couple of weeks back in those days because of finer grasses and less in the way of rocks, stumps, swamps, mud, et.al, to try to get into some type of playable shape.

I don't think you could create an inland golf course of any quality in a few weeks, or even a couple of months....even if the sheep could have shorn the grass short enough to have something like a playable surface, I can't imagine what a green might look like...

Signed,

Grown up playing inland muddy, clay-based soils, including trying to play some rudimentary "field golf" as a kid on makeshift courses we tried to put together.   It was completely unplayable, in reality, and every other shot was a lost ball.   Putting?...forgettaboutit!  


David,

There are more than enough contemporaneous accounts crediting Leeds with the golf course at Myopia.   I guess having another aristocratic amateur designing golf courses is too much for you guys and your ivory tower liberal sensibilities (and I say that as a Democrat myself), and you'd rather credit the poor, itinerant working class guy Campbell, but good luck there.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul apparently will not explain himself, but you guys are they one's relying on his every word.  So what is going on here?   Shouldn't he have known these things if he had access to the records to which he claims he has access."


David:

Of course I will explain myself.

But reading this thread since you reprised it in the beginning of Dec, 2010 (it had slide into the back pages after a stint in March 2010) I do ask myself what the purpose of this thread really is for you and Tom MacWood (who reprised it in March 2010 after it slide into the back pages from a longer stint after MacWood started it in August, 2009).

I've explained on here probably a dozen times I read some contemporaneous meeting minutes from 1894 because I wanted to know (perhaps after it was brought up on this website at some point) why Weeks said what he did about Appleton, Merrill and Gardner staking out nine holes in the spring of 1894 in his book. I don't even recall now just when I did that or even how much I read. I think all I wanted to know back then was what Weeks was essentially referring to and looking at when he wrote some of the things he did in his history book. I feel strongly that I found that. I  also feel very strongly I read what Desmond Tolhurst was referring to in his history book of Merion when he wrote some of the things he did which you and MacWood have continued to question. Those things were in the archives of MCC and Wayne Morrison found them; and certainly not either of you two. You two self-promoting "expert researchers" didn't even know they existed when you began to take Merion's history and Tolhurst's history book to task for numerous historical inaccuracies. We had to point all that out to you----eg what was in the MCC archives such as Macdonald's letter and all those board meeting minutes.

As for the secretary of Myopia in 1894, frankly, I'm not sure about that; I don't remember even thinking about that or looking. S. Dacre Bush was a secretary of Myopia at some point, I believe, but perhaps later on his way up the Myopia Executive Committee ladder. He became the president of the club at some point. I know he was that in 1908 and he was the president for some years although I'm not sure how long. But all that is obviously in Myopia's archives.

I guess I could go back and look for some of those details but I doubt I will be there again until at least next summer.

But frankly, I'd want to know what your purpose is here; you and MacWood. If you are just trying to put me through the ringer because you two jerks just contribute on here to prove someone and some other club wrong about anything at all, then I guess I'm really not interested; certainly not in you two.

I've told you many times on here I am not interested in your philosophy and your suggestions that to speak about something one knows and has read on this website they must first post it or show it to other contributors. To me that is bullshit; it's your stupid suggestion and rule and I'm not interested in it in the slightest. As I've said many times before on threads like this one with you two on them I don't even know how to post material and even if I did I would definitely think twice about it and run it through any club for their permission to do it.

If you want to vet what I say on here then you can just go do the research work I have on the sites and at the clubs I have and if for whatever reason you can't or don't want to do that then in my opinion you two self-proclaiming and self-promoting "expert independent researchers" are just shit outta luck.

THAT is what any good researcher on any subject does, in my book----eg GO TO THE SUBJECT itself and research what they have in their archives, and in my mind there is no reason whatsoever that a couple of people like you and MacWood should be the only exceptions to that modus operandi and that basic research responsibility!

I just took the time to read through the first ten or so pages of this particular thread, and very carefully. What is happening now after you reprised this in Dec, 2010 is no different than the other two stints of this thread in Aug, 2009 when MacWood initially posted this thread and when MacWood reprised it in March, 2010. I note a couple of posts on this thread from Jim Kennedy and Tony Muldoon that they think my feelings and philosophy about a working relationship with a club first or being a requirement  is essentially worthless and unimportant and they took me to task for saying it was. In my opinion, like you and MacWood, they are just shit outta luck too if that's the way they feel about it.

I care about these clubs and what they think, particularly about the unasked dissemination of their private material, and I care about what they think about Golfclubatlas.com. I care because I have friends in all of them and I care about GOLFCLUBATLAS.com too and the opinions of those clubs about it. If some of you people who don't understand that or don't believe in it think otherwise then all I can tell you, AGAIN, is I just don't agree with you and I doubt I ever will.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Cmon man...can't you just catch the next puddle-jumper up to Boston and grab a cab to South Hamilton and see if anyone is hanging around there in the middle of December and report right back to us, pronto.

Cmon...while the rest of us sit here looking up old newspapers warmly esconced behind our computer screens we need someone to actually do some legwork with the club itself and we know sure as shootin' that these guys aint going anywhere in the real world!

So get to it!  We expect a full report by morning.

[TEPaul]

Michael:

You know me a bit or at least enough to know I am not exactly a busy guy. If I had the kind of research and collaboration relationship with those I mentioned in the post above that I have with a number of others around the country I would seriously consider getting on a plane and going up there and arranging for a real research session. I may do that anyway but not for GOLFCLUBALTLAS.com, at least not while the likes of Moriarty and MacWood are participating on it. In that vein, I'm more interested in the USGA Architecture Archive and in Myopia's research interests itself. They actually have a new guy on the block and he is gung-ho. I think there are numerous assets some of my best collaborating friends have discovered that can be passed on to him. But that I can probably do via download first.

But with the way these subjects have gone on here with pretty much only MacWood and Moriarty souring them, these things are not going to happen on here at least not via me. In my opinion, they don't deserve it for the way they've been and the way they act on here and what they expect from others without the slightest inclination to do it themselves. But if they ever change their minds and their attitudes they know where to find me, but I ain't gonna hold me breath, that's for dang-tootin' sure.  

Matter of fact, at this point, with those two guys anyway, I shouldn't even appear to promise that; at this point, I think, for me anyway, it is pretty much the old proverbial "Three strikes---You're Out!"

[DMoriarty]

David,

There are more than enough contemporaneous accounts crediting Leeds with the golf course at Myopia.   I guess having another aristocratic amateur designing golf courses is too much for you guys and your ivory tower liberal sensibilities (and I say that as a Democrat myself), and you'd rather credit the poor, itinerant working class guy Campbell, but good luck there.

Mike Cirba,

Herbert Leeds?  Not even TEPaul has bothered to claim that Leeds had anything to do with the lay out until sometime in 1896!

And TEPaul noted above that they were already taking steps to use the "ridge" in 1894.    As I suggested earlier, I believe that the supposed long nine may have been in existence from 1895 on.  After all, how long could it take a bunch of rich guys to get enough money for grass seed, anyway?   Didn't TEPaul say that Appleton Farm was basically a scientific grass lab?   Surely they got the seed in time to have grass by the 1895 season.  

I guess you just don't care about all the problems in TEPaul's version of the "minutes" but I expected that.  

TEPaul wrote:

"TEPaul apparently will not explain himself, but you guys are they one's relying on his every word.  So what is going on here?   Shouldn't he have known these things if he had access to the records to which he claims he has access."


David:

Of course I will explain myself.

But reading this thread since you reprised it in the beginning of Dec, 2010 (it had slide into the back pages after a stint in March 2010) I do ask myself what the purpose of this thread really is for you and Tom MacWood (who reprised it in March 2010 after it slide into the back pages from a longer stint after MacWood started it in August, 2009).

I've explained on here probably a dozen times I read some contemporaneous meeting minutes from 1894 because I wanted to know (perhaps after it was brought up on this website at some point) why Weeks said what he did about Appleton, Merrill and Gardner staking out nine holes in the spring of 1894 in his book. I don't even recall now just when I did that or even how much I read. I think all I wanted to know back then was what Weeks was essentially referring to and looking at when he wrote some of the things he did in his history book. I feel strongly that I found that. I  also feel very strongly I read what Desmond Tolhurst was referring to in his history book of Merion when he wrote some of the things he did which you and MacWood have continued to question. Those things were in the archives of MCC and Wayne Morrison found them; and certainly not either of you two. You two self-promoting "expert researchers" didn't even know they existed when you began to take Merion's history and Tolhurst's history book to task for numerous historical inaccuracies. We had to point all that out to you.

As for the secretary of Myopia in 1894, frankly, I'm not sure about that; I don't remember even thinking about that or looking. S. Dacre Bush was a secretary of Myopia at some point, I believe but perhaps later on his way up the Myopia Executive Committee latter. He became the president of the club at some point. I know he was that in 1908 and he was the president for some years although I'm not sure how long. But all that is obviously in Myopia's archives.

I guess I could go back and look for some of those details but I doubt I will be there again until at least next summer.

But frankly, I'd want to know what your purpose is here; you and MacWood. If you are just trying to put me through the ringer because you two jerks just contribute on here to prove someone and some other club wrong about anything at all, then I guess I'm really not interested; certainly not in you two.

I've told you many times on here I am not interested in your philosophy and your suggestions that to speak about something one knows and has read on here they must first post it or show it to other contributors. To me that is bullshit; it's your stupid suggestion and rule and I'm not interested in it in the slightest. If you want to vet what I say on here than you can just go do the research work I have on the sites and at the clubs I have and if for whatever reason you can't or don't want to do that then in my opinion you are just shit outta luck.

THAT is what any good researcher on any subject does----eg GO TO THE SUBJECT itself and research what they have and in my mind there is no reason whatsoever that a couple of people like you and MacWood should be the only exceptions to that modus operandi!

TEPaul,

It sounds to me like you do not have you have much of a recollection of whatever it was you looked at other than that, in your mind, it confirmed Weeks account.  

I am not surprised that in your mind whatever you looked at confirmed what you wanted it to confirm, after all as you said you did the same thing regarding Merion's records; you took a look at them and then repeatedly claimed that they confirmed everything you had always known about the creation of Merion and that you had always had it right.   You claimed you had definitive proof that it was Wilson and his committee who designed the course, that the Francis land swap occurred in the spring, that CBM and HJW were not integrally involved, etc. and on and on.  Yet as more slipped out it turned out that the records actually strongly bolstered the case FOR CBM's involvement, not against it, and the records essentially confirmed most of what I  had argued.

Here, though, you didn't take notes, and you have no record of what you saw, so it seems you are just filling in details as you see fit, sort of shadowing Weeks as you go along.  It seems pretty clear that whatever you read, your information comes from Weeks, and not some minutes or club "records."
-- You've repeatedly claimed Bush was the club Secretary and the one who created these supposed records.  He wasn't.   But Weeks said he was so you acted as if you knew he was.  You got your information from Weeks.
-   You've repeatedly claimed that according to the records White was the professional in 1896-97, and possibly1895.   Surely this information too came from Weeks, did it not?   Because Weeks said exactly this, didn't he.   What kind of club records indicate a pro was there "probably" in 1895.
-  You have repeatedly indicated that the Dacre Bush quotes were recorded in the club minutes or some equivalent administrative records.   Because that is what Weeks said.   No contemporaneous club records would identify a meeting as occurring "sometime in March"
-  You claimed they "staked out the course" and you probably got this from Weeks as well, only you couldn't help exaggerating it even here, claiming to know for certain things about which Weeks could only speculate.  
_____________________________

As for what happened with Merion minutes, your recollection and accuracy are about as bad as they are with this Myopia stuff.   I knew of the existence and location of those minutes long before Mr. Capers and Wayne finally bothered to go look at them.   I had contacted the Cricket Club when I first figured out where these records were.  It was no big secret, had you ever bothered to read Merion's first history you'd have realized that minutes existed as well, and if Merion didn't have them (and you guys claimed they did not) then they had to be at the Cricket Club.   But you guys had written them off as lost in some sort of a natural disaster, along with Wilson's plans.    A flood, wasn't it?   Ask Wayne.  He knows I knew of the minutes and their location.   Tell him to check his old emails if he doesn't recall.  
______________________________________________

You never explained the conflict between what you are doing for the USGA and what you are doing here.  You keep insisting that we must develop relationships with these clubs, but my understanding is that USGA Archives is trying to make information available to everyone, regardless of their "relationships" or club affiliations.    And the amount of times that insiders get it wrong shows that there is very good reason for this!  

Yet your modus operandi directly contradicts this goal, to the point that I have absolutely no idea how you can possibly represent the USGA's interests while still carrying out your agenda of controlling information and dictating only your vision and interpretation of histories.  

Mind explaining that?  
_____________________________

Mike Cirba, I guess that you need reminding, again, that you haven't seen Myopia's records either, and you have absolutely no idea what they actually say or even if they exist.  Yet here you are, hanging on TEPaul's every word, as if he wrote the supposed minutes himself.  

[TEPaul]

"Mind explaining that? "


Yes, David Moriarty, I do mind explaining that to you after you used that question to punctuate a post on this website as obnoxious as that last one. I am going to cut and paste that last post of yours and send it to the USGA, Merion, Myopia, and any other club I can think of that remotely may have some need to know. I have a whole lot of good working relationships on this thing we do---golf course architecture and its histories, but you two are certainly the exceptions to that!

Your time has come and gone, in my opinion, David. I'm not so sure yet about MacWood but it's real close.

Have nice life, whatever it is.

[Mike Cirba]

Well, once again it appears this is more a personal vendetta than any search for the truth so I'm out of here.   

I guess the idea that we can have real discussions about all the facts is simply a pipe dream and obviously not realistic here.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul wrote:

Yes, David Moriarty, I do mind explaining that to you after you used that question to punctuate a post on this website as obnoxious as that last one. I am going to cut and paste that last post of yours and send it to the USGA, Merion, Myopia, and any other club I can think of that remotely may have some need to know. I have a whole lot of good working relationships on this thing we do---golf course architecture and its histories, but you two are certainly the exceptions to that!

Not sure what has you so upset, TEPaul.  There are no personal digs in that last post of mine, and no "jokes" that might be misconstrued as such.  It accurately reflects what I view as having happened.  I am not sure why you insisted on inserting Merion into this conversation, or why you misrepresented what went on regarding their records, but surely you must know by now that I will set the records straight when this happens.  I'd hate for anyone to get the wrong impression.

As for the comments about the USGA archives, it is again you who inserted that in here, about how what you care about most is in the USGA Architecture Archive and in Myopia's research interests itself?   If that was the case I'd think you'd put aside your mantra about how it is all about developing a relationship with the clubs, and start sharing the primary source material with anyone remotely interested.   After all, isn't that what the USGA archives are supposed to be about?    Gathering all the source material and making it reasonably available for research purposes to all interested parties.  Isn't this the antithesis of what you espouse around here?   How many times have you ridiculed us for not having relationships with these clubs, as if your relationships with these places weren't a direct byproduct of your ancestor's good name? Your USGA Archives are supposed to break the very barriers that you insist on keeping up.  

Not sure why any of this offends you now.  The other night you thought these were good questions which needed to be addressed.  Did you forget about that?  

And feel free to send my post to anyone you want.  When you do, perhaps you should explain to them that you believe that only those with sufficient "relationships" with the clubs should be allowed to study those clubs, and that anything written about these clubs should essentially be an inside job.  And ask them about how that fits in with the mandate of their Archives.   Maybe they will adopt and incorporate your elitist, closed-door attitude toward research into the history of the game, if they haven't already.     Maybe they could require membership in an old line club before anyone can gain access to the archives.  

That would sure be good for the game.  

_________________________________________________________

Mike Cirba,

Give me a break. My responses directly addressed TEPaul's posts and yours.  He is the one who brought up Merion and made inaccurate claims about what transpired there.  And he is the one who brought up his role of the USGA Archives.  

If there is a personal vendetta here, it is found in TEPaul's last post, not mine.    Or what do you suppose he meant by "your time has come and gone."    Was this an indirect reference to Robert White's brief tenure at Myopia?  

[DMoriarty]

Here is what TEPaul wrote about the "records" in September 2008:

Mr. MacWood:

I've seen the 1894 Myopia Club record by Board secretary S. Dacre Bush. The original nine was laid out before Campbell arrived in America. Play began around June 1, 1894. The three months is accurate not the least reason being S. Dacre Bush's recorded those events in 1894, including the first two tournaments both of which Leeds won just after all those facts of 1894.

If you want to dismiss those kinds of contemporaneous board records of golf clubs such as Merion and Myopia and exaggerate some peripheral people who were not even part of these projects when they began that's just fine but I guarantee you noone takes that seriously.

Keep searching and maybe someday you may find your way to Myopia or Merion and figure all this out from their archives although I doubt it.

Well there you go.   TEPaul has seen the Myopia club records, created in 1894, by Board Secretary S. Dacre Bush.  Not sure why now he suddenly doesn't know who the Secretary of the club was, given he has read the minutes Secretary Bush created.

What I find interesting is that TEPaul's recollection of the minutes is almost exactly the same as the quote of S. Dacre Bush which appears in Weeks' book.  Fascinating that his recollection of the Board minutes is exactly the same as the Bush quote, even though Bush was not the Secretary.  

Anyway, a few months before, on July 23, 2008, TEPaul provided a long excerpt from the Weeks book including the quote from "S. Dacre Bush, Club Secretary." Here is part of the quotation, with the quotation of the "Club Secretary" in bold:

          It was fortunate that the man who suggested golf at Myopia was the newly elected Master of Fox Hounds, R.M. Appleton. “Bud” Appleton was the indispensable go-between, so popular he could placate the Hunt and practical enough not to minimize the difficulties. When the snows melted in the spring of 1894, Appleton, with two fellow members, “Squire” Merrill and A.P. Gardner, footed it over the Club acres, spotting the tees and pacing off the distance to provisional greens, probably marking them with pegs.
         Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be ready for play in three months, and the speed with 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 March 1894 it was decided to build a golflinks on the Myopia grounds. Accordingly the ground was examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut, and play began June 1st, 1894. Members and associates soon began to show much interest in the game, and the first tournament was held June 18th , 1894. About twenty five entries. Won by Herbert Leeds of Boston who was scratch. Score first round 58; second round 54; Total 112. The second tournament held on July 4th , 1894. About twenty entries. Won by Herbert Leeds, scratch 52-61-113.'”

It seems TEPaul's recollection of the club minutes was identical to the Weeks, quote, and that since then his recollection has just expanded to include more of the quote.  

But what really fascinates me is TEPaul's version of the "record" recorded by Club Secretary S. Dacre Bush.   Anyone notice anything funny about it?  Here let me help. Here is Jeff Brauer's transcription of some of the material from about a page above ( the Bush quote in bolds.)

"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.'”

Anyone notice anything, other than that TEPaul's quote included the first two tournaments, and Jeff Brauer's didn't.

TEPaul must have a different book.   In TEPaul's book, the Executive Committee met "March 1894."  Not "about March 1894."   And in TEPaul's book "play began June 1, 1894." It didn't begin "about June 1, 1894" like in Jeff Brauer's book.  

Incredible! TEPaul has a real rarity on his hands: A misprint version of what is already a fairly rare text.  And his version includes specificity where the Jeff's book lacks it!

Either that or TEPaul misquoted the text in order to create the false impression that these "records" were more certain than they really were.  

So which is it TEPaul,  do you have a rare book worthy of a high price on EBay?  Or have you manipulated the source material for rhetorical gain?

Or are you going to tell us that this was yet another innocent error, like when you accidently dropped the key sentence from the Alan Wilson letter?

[Tom MacWood]

David
TEP is not going to admit he never saw the Myopia board minutes. And no one is going to hold him to the same standard as the rest of us. I think the best thing to do is to humor him and ignore him.

[Tom MacWood]

Well, once again it appears this is more a personal vendetta than any search for the truth so I'm out of here.   

I guess the idea that we can have real discussions about all the facts is simply a pipe dream and obviously not realistic here.

Mike
There is only one person on this site who has been outspoken about vendettas, and amazingly the reaction has been mostly positive from educational and informational standpoint. So I don't know why you are protesting now, knowing you certainly weren't protesting then.

[DMoriarty]

TomM,

Yes, but in addition to his suspect story about the minutes, here he is again selectively misrepresenting the source material.

Will they really just ignore this as well?  Even though all of their respective theories rely on little but blind faith in his representations about this very same source material?  

If he cannot be trusted to accurately provide a quotation out of a book (albeit one he didn't think you had or that anyone would check) then how on earth can they believe what he says about the records he supposedly has seen?

Surely this is too much.  

__________________
Here is TEPaul's complete quote of the Weeks passages.  Note how his recollection of the "minutes" starts at the Bush quote and spreads out from there

Now here is a bit of potentially interesting info when it comes to what may've influenced Herbert Leeds (made him tick) early on in golf and perhaps even golf architecture and may be a direct influence or even direct and accurate attribution on the first holes of Myopia in 1894 before Leeds belonged to the club or became involved in Myopia's architecture. These were the same original holes MacWood has been claiming Willie Campbell designed.

The Myopia centennial history book attributes the laying out of the original nine holes of Myopia (not exactly the very same so-called "Long Nine" that Leeds was responsible for improving and on which the 1898 U.S. Open was played) but the very first holes which had some greens and such that were not in the same place as some of their landforms have them today.

Myopia's history book attributes the laying out and design of those early rudimentary holes to three men who were members of Myopia. They are:

1. R.M (Bud) Appleton, the recently elected "Master of the Fox Hounds" at Myopia (don't forget for many years previous to golf at Myopia Hunt Club, the club was a polo and hunting club. Still today it's a golf club and polo club).

2. A man by the name (in the history book) of "Squire" Merrill.

3. A third man named A.P. Gardner.


To preface the history book slightly, the author, Edward Weeks (not exactly a slouch in writing as he was the Editor of Atlantic Monthly magazine), tells us that the first few rudimentary golf courses to appear in Boston in the early 1890s weren't even clubs---they were created on some of the big estates of some of those Boston Brahmans.

What were those early "estate" courses that Weeks says preceded the courses at the clubs by a few years and what did he have to say about them? Here it is from the Myopia centennial history book:




"In the early 1890s golf made its debut in New England, and importation which could best be afforded by the well-to-do. Newport fashioned the first course of nine holes and the first open championship in America was held there in 1895 with eleven entries---ten professionals and a single amateur. In Massachusetts, the game was played informally on private estates as early as 1892. At Appleton Farm in Ipswich, six holes were laid out for the entertainment of the family and guests, and Colonel Francis Appleton recalled that sheep cropped the fairways and were kept off the putting green by low wire netting such as enclosed a croquet lawn. At Moraine Farm on the shore of Whenham Lake, the Phillips family maintained a number of holes, as did the Hunnewells in Wellesley on their picturesque acres bordering the Charles River.
       Four Massachusetts courses emerged within a few months of each other and at an unbelievably low cost. Two were close to the sea: the Prides Golf Course (1893) consisting of nine flat, short holes, (long since abandoned), and Essex County Club (1893) at Manchester, six holes, very much more difficult. Further inland were the six holes of The Country Club, laid out in 1893 at a cost of fifty dollars and soon increased to nine holes, and the nine holes of the Myopia Hunt Club (1894). At both The Country Club and Myopia there was opposition, not to say derision, from the horse lovers: at Clyde Park idiots intent “on chasing a Quinine pill around a cow pasture,” as Finley Peter Dunne put it, were warned not to foul up the race course; at Hamilton (Myopia) they were not to interfere with the Hunt!
       It was fortunate that the man who suggested golf at Myopia was the newly elected Master of Fox Hounds, R.M. Appleton. “Bud” Appleton was the indispensable go-between, so popular he could placate the Hunt and practical enough not to minimize the difficulties. When the snows melted in the spring of 1894, Appleton, with two fellow members, “Squire” Merrill and A.P. Gardner, footed it over the Club acres, spotting the tees and pacing off the distance to provisional greens, probably marking them with pegs.
         Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be ready for play in three months, and the speed with 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 March 1894 it was decided to build a golflinks on the Myopia grounds. Accordingly the ground was examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut, and play began June 1st, 1894. Members and associates soon began to show much interest in the game, and the first tournament was held June 18th , 1894. About twenty five entries. Won by Herbert Leeds of Boston who was scratch. Score first round 58; second round 54; Total 112. The second tournament held on July 4th , 1894. About twenty entries. Won by Herbert Leeds, scratch 52-61-113.”


That is the architectural attribution of the first nine holes of Myopia Hunt Club directly out of the club records including some of the words and recordings of the very people there at the club at that time. This is contemporaneous. And because it’s direct and contemporaneous, I sure do know I do not want to see somebody on here like Tom MacWood suggest it is all hyperbole or lies and should be thrown out (as he said about Leeds’ own diary) so the club can start again and revise their early architectural history about 115 years later because HE has recently become interested Willie Campbell or even in the club and it primary architect, Herbert Leeds. The way he is coming at Myopia right now is the very same way he came at Merion and us over five years ago on this trumped up claim that Macdonald had been minimized by Merion and continues to be by some of us in Philadelphia. It was garbage then and it’s garbage now.

If the info on Willie Campbell designing the original nine rather than those three Myopia members as the club's history says, is real and valid (assuming the nature and origin of your Boston Globe information), I'm sure the club would love to know about it, Tom MacWood. If you want credit for providing the information, I have no problem at all with that. But as seems always the case as you try to prove this you also will be attempting, once again, with another major American golf course to prove those there at the club and from the club were lying somehow about what they recorded they did. Don't you think this tack of yours is getting just a bit tiresome and more than a little illogical and unbelievable??  


By the way, Tom MacWood, who do you think the Appleton Farm was mentioned above that had one of the first golf courses in Massachusetts even before the clubs? It was A.M. Appleton's, the very same man from Myopia who became the Master of the Fox Hounds at Myopia in 1894 and who Myopia's history says laid out their first nine hole course with two member/friends 2-3 years later. Who do you think layed out the six hole course on the Appleton Farm, Willie Campbell? He hadn't come to America at that point but I'm sure you will avoid or dismiss that fact somehow! Maybe the time has come for you and David Moriarty to realize and understand that these so-called "amateur/sportsmen" back then who their clubs claim designed those early course really did do it themselves and they did not exactly have to depend on some "expert" that you constantly try to find to do it for them.

An historical point of trivia----"Appleton Farm" in Ipswich, Massachussets is considered to be the oldest farm in America still under the control of the same original family!

Note also that even two years ago TEPaul was having trouble distinguishing between a club record and a club history created 80 some years later.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

How many times have you claimed that I have "misrepresented" what you have stated on here and yet here you go doing the same with me!

"Jeff Brauer, Mike Cirba, Phillip Young, All of your theories are based primarily on blind faith in TEPaul's claim that he has seen Myopia's administrative records and that he has accurately conveyed the information within.  Yet it is becoming more and more apparent that something is amiss here."

You need to actually start READING what you are writing about. Please show me a SINGLE INSTANCE on this thread where I have stated who I believe originally designed Myopia. You can't because I HAVEN'T!

Who on here has actually suggested that Tom Paul has written from memory rather than quoting directly from what he is looking at? Let's see, when you do it its incisive reasoning but WHEN I DO IT its blindly supporting him, unless you once again have missed or ignored what I wrote!

Do I believe that he has seen their records? Yes, I do. Have I taken ANY stance on who designed the original course? NO! Have I suggested anyone who may have been involved? YES! Is it who you think I may be refering to since you state "my theory" is based upon "blind loyalty" to what Tom has stated? NO, you are wrong again because you simply are not paying attention to what I have written yet you have no problem with MIREPRESENTING THOSE SAME COMMENTS!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()