News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Phil_the_Author

Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1425 on: January 08, 2011, 09:54:10 PM »
David,

There isn't a thing wrong with me and I'm certainly not trying to pick a fight. You have this constant problem when someone disagree's with you that you feel you are being personally attacked. That certainly isn't the case in anything I've said to either you or Tom and in no way did I "lash out" at either of you.

First of all, I'm sorry that the word "evaluation" makes no sense to you. That it doesn't suggests to me that you actually have no true understanding of the overall picture of the game and the courses upon which it was played in the late 1800s to 1920 in America. The comparisons to the abilities of American players vs. Scots and American courses vs. Scots was a constant. There were ongoing arguments, including numerous insults, on both sides of the Atlantic. The phrase, as used, is both proper for the time and quite easily understood. I am greatly surprised that you don't understand.

As for Tom, he has constantly demanded proof of statements made by others, yet here, when he makes a pronouncement that no club documents were used and bases it upon one man being referred to as a newspaper editor, why then it means that none were used and that the information must have come from newspapers? That is an absurd leap in logic. How does he know which newspaper Stoddard worked for as it isn't listed? How does he know how accurate the information about Myopia contained in his paper was? How does he know that Stoddard WASN'T a member of Myopia? That is what I asked him. He responded by now including that they also received information form the MYOPIA CLUB MANAGER yet he can't believe that direct records and/or information from the club was used? That is beyond an absurd leap in logic. Frankly, knowing that the Myopia Club Manager supplied photographs convinces me that Stoddard MUST be a member because if one wanted information about a club and he had the cooperation of the club manager, the ONLY possible reason that I can think as to why the manager wouldn't give him it is because the person who did was a very knowledgeable member of the club who was either an eyewitness to the events or had the documents from the club available to him. To think otherwise in this situation is simply beyond reason.

Actually David, it is your behavior that raises serious questions about your willingness and ability to deal with this sort of thing reasonably, not mine...     

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1426 on: January 08, 2011, 11:15:59 PM »

Tom MacWood,

Mays seems to be quite confused about a number of things.  
- So far as I know there was no "new site."  
- There was no eventual abandonment of the original nine hole course.  
- And Myopia was not chosen for the 1898 Open because it "proved such an outstanding test."  Rather, no one else wanted the Open.   As of the Annual meeting, not a single club had stepped up to take the Open by itself, and only one club (St. Andrews) would take it only if they were also given the Amateur.    There was even talk of providing a financial incentive to convince some USGA club to step up!


I also question his claim about 1896, be it a new course or a revised course. There is compelling evidence that change actually took place in 1895. Weeks could not confidently say when the change took place.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1427 on: January 09, 2011, 12:42:54 AM »
Phillip,

Notwithstanding your lecture, the sentence makes no sense.   It is not a substantive issue, but one of semantics.  Besides, I really don't need any lectures from you about the beginnings of golf in America.

Your comments about TomM's post are just more of your bizarre tit-for-tat logic. Not worth addressing.  

_____________________

TomM,

I agree with you that  the 1896 comment may have been mistaken as well.

Do we know for sure where the Hopkins land was, or is Weeks the only source on that one as well?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 01:11:10 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Phil_the_Author

Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1428 on: January 09, 2011, 05:11:42 AM »
David,

You really need to update your vocabulary. It is no surprise that when you cannot refute you proceed to mud... THAT is bizarre! It is just as typical as Tom not responding to either my questions or my statement. I'm sure we'll see his standard "I don't pay attention to what you write, what did you say" response shortly.

No, David, you evidently are in need of someone to school you on the beginnings of golf in America...

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1429 on: January 09, 2011, 09:57:33 AM »

TomM,

I agree with you that  the 1896 comment may have been mistaken as well.

Do we know for sure where the Hopkins land was, or is Weeks the only source on that one as well?


David
I think most agree 'evaluation' makes no sense. Elevation was the first word that came to my mind, though evolution makes sense too. Weeks also got the name of the most important man in club history wrong, 'Herbert Carey Leeds'.

I'm not sure if that map you posted pages ago also showed Hopkins land or not. Weeks is the only source I'm aware of for how the original course was changed, creating the so called Long Nine. And basically he claims three new holes on the ridge replaced three holes on Hopkins land.

His timing for how it occurred is confusing however. On one hand he gives the impression they began developing the holes on that first year or soon after and then on the other hand claims Leeds oversaw the change after he became a member (mid-1896 to 1897). If there is one thing clear by now it didn't take very long for a nine hole courses to be laid out and ready for play; one would think three holes would be quick.

Based on the report in late 1895 that the course was new, and the report in early 1896 that Leeds of Brookline was responsible for Myopia, and the report in 1896 that the course was over 2800 yards, I believe the course was changed in 1895 by Leeds prior to him becoming a member. I would not be surprised if Campbell was also involved because of their close ties.

Phil
Stoddard worked for Gloucester Daily Times. I don't know what clubs he belonged to, if he belonged to any, I don't know his religion or political affiliation, or where he was educated, or if he was married or single, or his family history and background. Unlike some of the other acknowledgements in the book that mention the person's club affiliation, and their position within the club, this one only says he is the publisher of a newspaper.

Have you read May's piece; do you have the book?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 10:32:30 AM by Tom MacWood »

Mike Cirba

Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1430 on: January 09, 2011, 11:25:38 AM »
So that we can all be on the same page...

In the 1974 Golf Digest coffee table book, "Great Golf Courses of the World", by William H. Davis and the Editors of Golf Digest, there are any number of previously published stories and course profiles put together in a colorful compendium.   The book has special meaning to me as it was the first golf course architecture related book I ever received, which my dad got for me in my late teens.

Among the articles is one titled, "early open courses", by John P. May.

First, May profiles Chicago Golf Club, and then Philadelphia Cricket Club, with some cool vintage photos of each accompanying the text.  Then, on page 50, across from a photo of the 8th hole at Myopia taken from the tee in 1900, May writes;

MYOPIA HUNT CLUB

The Myopia Hunt Club near Boston sprang from fox hunting, polo, trap shooting, riding plus a healthy interest in lawn tennis.   Myopia first surfaced in 1875 when a tennis club by that name was formed in Winchester, Mass.  In 1881 fox hunting became popular, and the Myopia Fox Hounds was founded.   Finally, on December 16, 1891 the Myopia Hunt Club became official.   It was in 1894, however, that the club's first nine golf holes, measuring only 2,050 yards, were laid out by three club members, R. M. Appleton, T. Wattson Merrill, and A. P. Gardner.

Myopia Hunt Club's unusual name comes from the fact that the original founders had two things in common -  a compelling interest in "sport", particularly hunting, and myopia or what's commonly called nearsightedness.   Yes, they all wore glasses.   Myopia's first president, Marshall Kittriedge Abbott, even wrote that "eyeglasses were a badge of distinction, amounting to a decoration."

In 1896 Herbert C. Leeds, a club member and its best golfer, laid out on another site the nine holes that form the basis for today's course (the first nine holes were eventually abandoned).   It was 2,930 yards long and was shortly afterwards altered again.   Myopia proved such an outstanding test that despite the fact that it had only nine holes, it was chosen as the site of the 1898 Open.   Fred Herd, a Scot professional working in Chicago, went around the nine holes eight times in two days and won with 328.   Designer Leeds, incidentally, finished eighth.   Another nine had been added at Myopia by 1901 when Willie Anderson won there the first of his four Open titles.   He won it there again in 1905 and little Fred McLeod took the last Open held at Myopia in 1908.

Today Myopia is a 6,353-yard, par-72 courses with a rating of 71.   It is still a site of occasional state and area tournaments; the 1976 Massachusetts State Amateur will be eld there.   Fairways burrow through thick stands of trees, marching up and down well-defined grades.  Fairway mounds are not uncommon and can cause a sidehill lie on a shot right down the middle.   The bunkers around the green are low and not so noticeable from the fairways.   The small greens call for pin-point approaches.

With each of the nine holes that existed in 1898 still included in the present course, Myopia is the model par excellence on the marriage between a great golfing tradition and sound course-design principles.   Surely, despite their spectacles, Myopia's early designers were far-sighted.

-- John P. May


Later, in the Acknowledgments Section it is written;

The following individuals provided extensive help, research, and background materials for the sections indicated:

US COURSES
- Donald E Casey, president, Chicago Golf Club, for photographs and material on Chicago Golf
- Joseph Hoover Jr., Joseph Hoover and Sons, for photographic film of man courses
- Carlton S. Young, Manager, Myopia Hunt Club, for vintage photographs of Myopia, and Alexander N. Stoddard, Publisher, Essex County Newspaper, for background information on Myopia
- The help of dozens of club managers and presidents of golf courses and clubs in the United States who edited material for accuracy is also gratefully acknowledged.

MEXICO
- and so on....


Phil_the_Author

Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1431 on: January 09, 2011, 11:36:48 AM »
Tom,

Since you don't know what clubs he belonged to, how can you so blithely declare that Stoddard's knowledge of Myopia HAD TO HAVE COME FROM NEWSPAPERS as sources and NOT as YOU put it "INTERNAL DOCUMENTS?" That is, after all, EXACTLY what you stated.

He worked for the "Gloucester  Daily Times" and that is it? That is all that you could find out about him? I'm quite surprised. Even someone as untalented as myself was able to find out that he was such a fine golfer that at one time he held the course record at Essex with a 66. By the way, he also happens to be a past "Master of the Green" at Myopia so I don't think he would have had too much of a problem accessing "INTERNAL DOCUMENTS" for "background information on Myopia."

It only took from last night till now to get that information...

Now as far as your latest statement, "I think most agree 'evaluation' makes no sense..." on WHAT could you possibly base that conclusion? A late-night telephone poll conducted after you stopped at Stoddard working for the Gloucester Daily Times? Your conclusion is invalid as it is solely based upon your own belief and nothing more... I personally have no problem with your "interpretation" but please, don't make a blanket declaration that it is supported by "most" when only four people have commented on it. Doing so sounds like the Marketing guy who talked to himself in the bathroom so that he could state how "Most people he talked with enjoyed the products he represented..."
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 12:17:35 PM by Philip Young »

Mike Cirba

Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1432 on: January 09, 2011, 12:47:45 PM »
Phil,

Nice finds.

I have a few comments about the John May piece.   I do agree with Tom MacWood and David Moriarty that it's likely Leeds began to design/expand the course from almost the beginning, and was definitely involved in club and course matters from almost inception, winning the Opening Day and July 4th tournaments in 1894.  

If the original course was only 2,050 yards and very "rough", then I think those in charge would have been looking to improve matters quickly once the game caught on among a segment of members and looking to build something more substantive and probably with more permanency (and possibly more real challenge, and not just difficulty due largely to unkempt rough and poor conditions).

Also, if Weeks is correct that the original course was also on land owned by Dr. Hopkins, then May is also technically correct when he states that the original course was in a different location from the course in 1898, although certainly some of the same land was used for both, so perhaps May was simply confused by reference materials that mentioned the course being on Hopkins'  land.

What I find confusing and inconsistent between the Weeks and May accounts is the total yardage.   Weeks tells us that "we know that this improvised links was on the grounds of the Club and those of our fellow member, Dr. S. A. Hopkins, to the north and east of the clubhouse", and then goes on to partially describe six holes of the course, which roughly follow the corridors of today's holes 2 (at 300 yards), 8 (400 yards?), 9 (100 yards), from right of 9 green to today's 11th green (250 yards), today's 12th, (300), today's 13th (at 250 yards).

If May is correct that the course was only 2,050 yards, that configuration would have only left approximately 420 yards for the three holes on the Hopkins property, which seems unlikely.

My guess is that Weeks had bits and piece of factual information and descriptions of the original nine holes, and perhaps hole names, but also had to admittedly speculate.   Tom Paul has mentioned that he didn't believe Weeks was correct in naming today's 8th hole as the 2nd of the original course, but I also think that if Hopkins land was used it likely was not in any configuration that we know in the holes that exist there today. (most of holes 4, 5, & 6)

I say this for a few reasons.   First, we do know that some version of today's 2nd hole with both tee and green in different locations at 300 yards was the original first.   Second, it does seem likely given other factors (such as Weeks citing specific hole "names") that the last four holes of the original course would have been something like today's 9th, then 10th tee to 11th green, then a shortened Valley hole (today's 12th), and then the "Pond" hole, of about 250-280 yards, sort of like today's 13th but with a tee well left of today's in what is today a forested area.

That would give room for the other four holes to go out and back across Hopkins land, perhaps on a diagonal, ending up around today's 6th green, or perhaps even climbing as high as the 8th green.

I also say this because I think we (and Weeks) fall victim to only imagining hole corridors as they exist today.   I remember when we started researching Cobb's Creek I was astounded to learn the paths that some original holes took, simply because to look at them today one looks simply at tall trees and thick woods.

Earlier this morning I came across a very early photo of the 4th hole at Myopia, which is mostly on land that was owned by Dr. Hopkins.   I'll see if I can't scan and post it in the next couple of days, but I was very surprised to see the land around and out to the right of the green, today which is thick woods, was all open hillside, and certainly playable land for golf.

So, while Weeks might be mistaken in his admitted speculation as to the exact nature of the holes, I still think the parallels between the Weeks account and the May account means that there are internal club records that we are not privy to that 1) Document the work of the three members in staking out the original course, and 2) Provide some limited insight into where and what those golf holes entailed.

Whether this is the course that Willie Campbell "laid out", what that work entailed, and whether Campbell made changes to the original members' hole configuration(s) is something I still don't think we know for certain based on what's been presented to date.

Personally, I think both stories are very likely true, but neither is something I'd bet the farm on.


« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 12:55:53 PM by MCirba »

Phil_the_Author

Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1433 on: January 09, 2011, 01:51:50 PM »
Mike,

Knowing who Alex Stoddard was and his position at Myopia also convinces me that there are internal documents and that they are the basis for information about the club's history that has been placed into the public venue...

Mike Cirba

Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1434 on: January 09, 2011, 02:07:45 PM »
Phil,

To contend otherwise I think one would have to believe that some combination of Stoddard, Carlton Young, Edward Weeks, and John P. May simply made it all up.

Personally, I think they got it mostly right based on internal club documents, and likely missed Campbell's role due to his being under the direct employ of TCC and Essex and therefore not included in any internal club documents.    Either that, or his role in designing a new course for Essex at the same time was mistaken with the reporting for Myopia's new course and then perpetuated in multiple Gossip Columns is a possibility, but I would think it likely that he did have a role at Myopia prior to the course opening.

Whether he simply built the greens and original course to the member's wishes, or modified it based on his own ideas is, and will likely remain, unknown.  
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 02:11:45 PM by MCirba »

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1435 on: January 09, 2011, 02:16:22 PM »
There were many newspapers available in the early Myopia days in Essex County:

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/search/titles/results/?state=Massachusetts&county=Essex&city=&year1=1880&year2=1900&terms=&frequency=&language=&ethnicity=&labor=&lccn=&materialType=

I'm quite confident much more information is out there to fill in the gaps.  Maybe one of our Boston GCAers will spend a weekend at the Boston Public Library looking at many of these papers on microfilm.  It has to be a treasure trove of early golf history just waiting to be "rediscovered"!
@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1436 on: January 09, 2011, 02:27:16 PM »
David
You quoted from the 'Myopia Songs & Waltzes', which was an early history of the club originally published in 1897:

"Golf has been introduced as a Myopia sport. Its development has been principally due to the efforts of Mr. Bush and Mr. Parker, who, in the opinion of many, have laid out one of the best inland courses in the country."

In Country Life (January 1916) an article claimed in 1894 under the leadership and stimulus of SD Bush and James Parker a nine hole course was laid out.

In James Lee's 'Golf In America' (1895) James Parker is listed as the head of the golf committee and Bush as his secretary. Leeds joined the golf committee sometime after he came to Myopia. In 1898 during the US Open Parker was head of the golf committee, Leeds and MJ Henry were the other two. James Parker was Leeds male companion.

It is interesting to note in 'Myopia Songs and Waltzes' it says golf was formally introduced in 1894, which may mean golf was played informally prior to 1894.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 02:31:47 PM by Tom MacWood »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1437 on: January 09, 2011, 06:15:42 PM »
Phillip,

I can't refute your blathering about the evaluation of Americans versus Scots?  Why bother to refute it?  It has nothing to do with the apparent mistake in that quote.

Mike,

Knowing who Alex Stoddard was and his position at Myopia also convinces me that there are internal documents and that they are the basis for information about the club's history that has been placed into the public venue...

Interesting analysis.   May claimed Stoddard was his source, yet May gets a number of facts wrong, and your conclusion is that there must be internal documents which form the basis of the various accounts of Myopia's history?    With internal documents like those, who needs fiction? 
____________________________________

TomM

I have read that Country Life article and came away from it thinking that the  author relied heavily on the 1897 Myopia songbook.   If I recall correctly, he even refers to it.   

I
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Phil_the_Author

Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1438 on: January 09, 2011, 07:11:57 PM »
Sorry David, but you simply can't seem to reason well on this one. Tom Macwood concluded that all the information in May's account came from NEWSPAPERS simply because he didn't know of Stoddard's membership at Myopia and position as "Keeper of the Green." He therefor jumped to wrong conclusions. Its interesting because according to his way of thinking it is the NEWSPAPERS that supplied all of the misinformation, yet his conclusions of what actually occurred are newspaper-based.

In this case, you are jumping to a conclusion as well that might also be fallacious. You are assuming that with a new understanding of Stoddard that ALL of the so-called mistakes in MAY'S writings are from Stoddard. Since you can't state with any reasonable certainty as to exactly what facts presented by May were from Stoddard you simply cannot reach that conclusion.

All I've done is concluded that there must be early club records...

p.s. - blather, blather, blather... simply because YOU don't understand something doesn't in any w3ay mean that the quote is mistaken...

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1439 on: January 09, 2011, 08:36:42 PM »
Yawn.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Phil_the_Author

Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1440 on: January 09, 2011, 09:41:07 PM »
"Yawn."

Now you know how we so often feel...

Mike Cirba

Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1441 on: January 09, 2011, 10:07:18 PM »
I'm not understanding why the conversation always erodes and turns negative every single time we get past basic newspaper articles?

All of us here seem to be digging pretty deep for evidence and information.   Why the need to try and negate the obvious conclusions and why the need to insult others to make rhetorical points?

I really don't think amy of that is necessary here, and it certainly doesn't advance the discussion or seriously address what is certainly new information that has been presented here.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1442 on: January 10, 2011, 06:14:13 AM »

TomM

I have read that Country Life article and came away from it thinking that the  author relied heavily on the 1897 Myopia songbook.   If I recall correctly, he even refers to it.   


David
It doesn't mention it, but you're right it is very similar and likely the primary source of the article.

Mike Cirba

Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1443 on: January 10, 2011, 06:29:01 AM »
Tom,

Where does it say that "golf was formally introduced in 1894"?

Thanks.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1444 on: January 10, 2011, 06:40:30 AM »
Phil,

To contend otherwise I think one would have to believe that some combination of Stoddard, Carlton Young, Edward Weeks, and John P. May simply made it all up.

Personally, I think they got it mostly right based on internal club documents, and likely missed Campbell's role due to his being under the direct employ of TCC and Essex and therefore not included in any internal club documents.    Either that, or his role in designing a new course for Essex at the same time was mistaken with the reporting for Myopia's new course and then perpetuated in multiple Gossip Columns is a possibility, but I would think it likely that he did have a role at Myopia prior to the course opening.

Whether he simply built the greens and original course to the member's wishes, or modified it based on his own ideas is, and will likely remain, unknown.  

To my knowledge no one has ever suggested they made it all up other than you and Jeff B. There is nothing in Weeks' book or May's article that gives any indication either man had access to internal documents. They do not quote from TEP's board minutes or any other contemporaneous document. Weeks does not know the date of the annual meeting in 1894. Neither man knew Campbell laid out the original course. Neither man knew when the original nine was changed or precisely how it was changed. And they don't agree on the basics of how it changed - Weeks claims three holes were changed and May says the course was completely abandoned, a new course was built at different site. Neither man knew precisely when the course was expanded to 18 holes. Weeks gives the impression it occurred after the '98 Open, when actually the work began in 1897. Weeks has no idea when or in what capacity White and Campbell worked for the club. They are not aware of the circumstances behind Myopia being chosen to host the 1898 Open.

If these men were relying on internal documents for their information how do you explain the misinformation, contradictions and gaps of knowledge, and why no direct quotes?
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 06:48:01 AM by Tom MacWood »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1445 on: January 10, 2011, 06:44:09 AM »
Under 'Some Myopia Dates':


SOME MYOPIA DATES

ii

Hunted from Gibney Farm, first season 1882

First Hunt Ball, Odd Fellows' Hall, Boston . . . 1885

First Village Dance, Wenham Town Hall .... 1885

First Polo Game, Gibney Farm 1888

Dinner given to Farmers 1887

Ball given to Farmers and their Families 1890

First Labor Day Sports 1890

Gibney Farm purchased 1891

Coach "Myopia" ran season of 1891

Ladies' Annex opened 1892

Coach " Constitution " ran season of 1892

Hamilton Centennial 1893

Golf formally introduced 1894

New stables erected 1896

Mike Cirba

Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1446 on: January 10, 2011, 07:39:18 AM »
Tom,

Where does it say golf was "formally introduced" in 1894?

Thanks

Mike Cirba

Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1447 on: January 10, 2011, 07:53:17 AM »
Tom...ahhh, I see.  Thanks.

So, is your theory that Appleton, et.al. laid out and played on a makeshift course prior to 1894, thus the conflicting accounts?
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 02:46:43 PM by MCirba »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1448 on: January 10, 2011, 08:50:30 AM »
Ahh, another Monday morning on golfclubatlas.com......

For the record, I didn't ever say these gents made up anything, and that is a misrepresentation of what I said.  As to TMac's post 1444, I disagree with many of his conclusions.

First, comparing Weeks to May, who was writing a 200 word summary of the club isn't really germaine to the subject, IMHO.

Second, no one really knows what Weeks is using as source material from his writing, but we cannot conclude that he didn't have club records from what he writes, can we?  In paging through the entire book, he uses quotes in some spots, but for the most part, writes it as his own narrative.  Some of the quotes, like one about Frick, come from outside sources.  Others must come from some old insider info from the club because of the details contained in some areas.

As to the changes Weeks suggested took place after the 1898 Open, he does write that Leeds had "already scrutinized unused portions of club land" suggesting at least the planning work had taken place prior to the successful tournament, if not any actual construction.  The map on the next page clearly shows that the land from Hopkins was acquired for $3500 in 1897.

Because he chose not to write the exact date of the March 1894 meeting, does that prove he didn't know when it was, or just that he didn't think his readers wanted to know that?  

And assuming that Campbell has been proven to design the golf course, and then claiming Weeks is wrong because he didn't know it, well that is assuming facts not in evidence, is it not?  There is a reason WC isn't known to be in club records over 100 years later, but we haven't proven that it was because Weeks was wrong.

Those are just a few examples of what I think are (or at least might be) improper conclusions.  I don't think the writing in Weeks allows those conclusions to be accepted as anything more than another interpretation at this point.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 09:15:28 AM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Willie Campbell & Myopia
« Reply #1449 on: January 10, 2011, 12:44:11 PM »

TMac says everyone involved at Myopia was making things up...


Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back