[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

Good morning and thanks for making my point for me.  I never said they were making things up, but sure think you have to believe that to have your theory make sense.

Now, I agree that particular verbiage is a bit too strong for the situation.  But, as described above, you have to interpret many things in a specific way to discount the things anyone at Myopia wrote about themselves in favor of those newspaper articles.

And again, I do not believe that your conclusions regarding what Weeks and others wrote about their own club over the years are necessarily correct.  They could be consistently wrong as you contend, but I think the odds of it are slim.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

So, is your theory that Appleton, et.al. laid out and played on a makeshift, "informal" course prior to 1894, thus the conflicting accounts?

Thanks!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

In rereading Weeks to respond to TMac, I was struck on how it appears that they walked the course ("footed it" in Weeks parlance) in early March before the annual meeting to make that presentation.  He does say "when the snow melted" and implies it was pre annual meeting which actually makes sense.

I am now wondering (yes, speculation, but TMac shouldn't mind since it would concur with his theory) if Weeks only read so far in the club records as to see that the committee had laid out the course in preparation for that annual meeting, and then didn't look any further in the architectural record to see anything that might have happened later, such as Campbell being employed?

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

It is possible but then May and/or Stoddard would have had to repeat the error.

[RSLivingston_III]

In the US, most everything I have ever read from regional publications pre-1900 had significant factual problems. Golf was so new the reporters knew nothing about the game. Heck, the players largely were ignorant of what they were doing.

[Tom MacWood]

TMac,

Good morning and thanks for making my point for me.  I never said they were making things up, but sure think you have to believe that to have your theory make sense.

Now, I agree that particular verbiage is a bit too strong for the situation.  But, as described above, you have to interpret many things in a specific way to discount the things anyone at Myopia wrote about themselves in favor of those newspaper articles.

And again, I do not believe that your conclusions regarding what Weeks and others wrote about their own club over the years are necessarily correct.  They could be consistently wrong as you contend, but I think the odds of it are slim.

The point I was trying to make is that no one ever claimed they made it up, but for some odd reason you (and Mike ) claim I said they did. I don't see what value you bring to these threads when you are constantly misrepresenting what people have said and confusing the facts.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

You are probably right, and I don't mean to fling more poo at you.  I will try to stop that.

As I said, its probably too strong language, but some of my other points stand, as we are many months in and from time to time, I feel like I help distinguish what is fact and what is still interpreatation.   

[Mike Cirba]

Tom and David,

Serious question...

If you don't believe Weeks and May just "made it up" separately, where do you think they alternately discovered that information?

I know you don't want to admit that there may be internal club documents in existence that don't support the newspaper accounts that the two men used, but if they didn't make it up, and you don't think they did, how do you think they both separately made what in your estimations is an error?

Thanks.

[Tom MacWood]

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.

You and others believe Weeks had access to contemporaneous club records, that his account is based on contemporaneous club records. And because May account predates Weeks, and May & Weeks both have the Squire & Co. laying out the course (and neither has knowledge of Campbell) there has been an assumption by some that May also had access to those same records. They have similar stories, they have similar errors, and they have similar holes in their stories. Personally I don't believe there are contemporaneous club records regarding the early years of the golf course, but the story about the Squire & Co (sans Campbell) had to come from somewhere and I think there is a good chance it was the same source.

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.

Why didn't he quote from the source material? To my knowledge he never quotes from contemporaneous source material when it comes to the design or redesign of the golf course. He also has no knowledge of Campbell who laid out the course in 1894 and was employed by the club in 1896. By the way the old insider never mentions the Squire & Co., or anyone else for that matter, designing the original golf course.  

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.

If he had good internal documents (or carried out any decent research) he would've known the decision to expand the course to 18 holes and construction began 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?

Because Weeks had no or poor club records, and did not carry out very extensive research, he was forced to rely on Bush's later account.

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.

Doesn't that speak to the thoroughness of the supposed internal club records and Weeks' research or lack there of?

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.

[Tom MacWood]

After absorbing all the information presented so far I think it is pretty clear Willie Campbell deserves lone credit for designing the original golf course. The question remains where did the story about the Squire & Co come from. I have no idea, and no one else seems to know either. I suspect one of two possibilities. Someone just made it up, perhaps in attempt to mirror the story of TCC origins when three members laid out a six-hole course over and around the race course in 1893. The second more likely scenario IMO, the Squire & Co began playing golf somewhere on the Myopia property in 1893. Forget the part about the snow melting, I think that was clearly an embellishment by Weeks. Forget the part about the sod being laid, sod may have been laid at some point, but it wouldn't have been 1893, or probably even 1894.

I can see the three members after being exposed to golf at TCC in 1893, and Essex which had a crude golf course in 1893 (a five hole course shaped like a diamond), probably batting the ball around Myopia. There is no mention of anyone playing golf at Myopia in 1893 so my guess would be they were playing very informally. No golf course per say, but a hole or two or three, that could be approached from different angles. And then the following spring, led by the Squire & Co prodding, the club voted to build a formal golf course. How's that for speculation.

The question remains why, when and by whom did Campbell get written out of the story. I've speculated it may been from an earlier history book in 1941. Another possibility is Leeds himself wrote Campbell out of the story for whatever reason.

Mike
You asked yesterday about the Squire & Co playing golf at Myopia prior to 1894, and yes I still do think that is the most logical explanation at present.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom and David,

Serious question...

If you don't believe Weeks and May just "made it up" separately, where do you think they alternately discovered that information?

I know you don't want to admit that there may be internal club documents in existence that don't support the newspaper accounts that the two men used, but if they didn't make it up, and you don't think they did, how do you think they both separately made what in your estimations is an error?

Thanks.

Mike
I agree, the story about the Squire & Co. (sans Campbell) had to come from somewhere, but I have no idea where. Bush's account is the only one Weeks mentions in his book, but he apparently does not mention who designed the original course.

I'd have you ask TEP since he has claimed to have gone through the club's records, but he already told us the story came from board records, which seems highly unlikely at this point.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Thanks for the answers.

I wouldn't agree that Bush was the likely source...Weeks seems to have no trouble quoting him directly and does so very liberally throughout the section, including just after he identifies the three members having staked out the course.

He also reproduces Bush's entire detailed description of the holes on the Long Nine.
 
I believe its a different internal source.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike and Tom,

I reread the Weeks account early this morning, pre-coffee, and I still believe some if not most of the account comes from club records.  Why?  Because the story of the three laying it out is said to have come from a terse entry in club records by Bush, just prior to being quoted.

I do understand the theory that it must have come from his later remembrances, but it says it came from the records.  If it had come from his rembrances after he was President, about 1908, would it not have read as "Remembrances of President Bush?"  (hmmm, which one?)  I doubt Weeks could be reading those and casually call them club records, but perhaps.  Or, it could just be that since he held position of golf committee secretary it was written but his full title not used, or it could have been written a few years later, in 1987 when Bush had ascended to Secretary of the Club, and wanted to fill in some historical records. 

Speculation?  Yeah, but it does take Weeks at his word that the quote came from club records.   Would a remembrance from ex President Bush be called a club record?  Not sure.  To assume a club secretary would not have entered any other events into the club records seems a bit incongruous to me.

[DMoriarty]

Tom and David,

Serious question...

If you don't believe Weeks and May just "made it up" separately, where do you think they alternately discovered that information?

I know you don't want to admit that there may be internal club documents in existence that don't support the newspaper accounts that the two men used, but if they didn't make it up, and you don't think they did, how do you think they both separately made what in your estimations is an error?

1.  There is a big difference between getting things wrong and "making things up."  One can make mistakes without lying or making things up, and as I have explained repeatedly,  I think that is what happened with Weeks.

2.   I have never claimed that there were no internal club records.   I have claimed that I don't think there are internal club records which adequately explain who laid out the original course.   I other words, there may be some club records, and they may even help explain why Weeks got it wrong, but it seems extremely unlikely that they will explain who exactly laid out the course.  

3.  As for where Weeks got is information, I have no idea, but like all historical analysis his claims carry very little weight without the backup.  Unfortunately, it does not sound like he properly sourced his book and so we are left guessing at his source(s.)  All we know is that there a a number of things about his account that are either outright wrong or in direct contradiction with contemporaneous documentation, and from that I think it is safe to infer that whatever information he was relying upon did not provide a complete picture of what happened.  

4.  While you guys seem to put great weight on club records, they can seriously mislead the researcher, especially by virtue of things that they may not have even addressed. Take Shinnecock, for example, where we have been told that the records  do not indicate that Shinnecock had a professional in 1892 and 1893.  From this the assumption was apparently drawn that the club must not have been a professional for those years.  Therefore, if there was no other professional there for those years, then Davis must have been responsible for the lay out of the golf course as it existed in 1893. Not trying to open up a Shinnecock discussion here, just trying to point out how easy it is to get started down the wrong path because of club records.

5. Something similar might have happened at Myopia.  Say, for example, that the minutes from the March meeting read something like this:
Bush: Appleton, Merrill, Gardner proposed formal introduction of golf to Myopia, and reported that land east and south of slope is well suited for 9 hole course.  Board approved the proposal, authorized expenditure, and authorized Bush and Parker of grounds committee to direct above named members to oversee the development of course.  Formal introduction of golf at Myopia tentatively scheduled for first gala event of season, mid-June.

I am not saying that the minutes say this or anything like it, I am just trying to give you an example of how the minutes themselves could have lead to the confusion about who laid out the course.  Except for the colorful descriptions of the snow melting, etc., about all the speculation about the initial course (including the oft ignored claim that Parker and Bush were responsible) could have come from such an entry.   Combine this with the lack of a mention of Campbell, and it would have been very easy to conclude that either AMG were responsible or that BP were responsible.    Yet the actual entry is entirely consistent with Campbell having laid out the course.

[John Kavanaugh]

I clicked on this thread only because I thought I could avoid another list.  Low and behold David lists reasons 1 through 5.  I'm going home to take a nap, these damn lists have worn me out.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Thanks...I think we've all exhausted this one unless someone comes up with additional external documentation and/or evidence or better yet, reviews club records.

I don't think we can draw any definitive conclusions, but I've learned a lot about Myopia and early Boston golf through the process.

[DMoriarty]

Given that the only one with access to the supposed documents  has repeatedly shown himself to be dishonest and unreliable even in regard to these very documents, I won't hold my breath.  

Based on the record as it now stands, it is unreasonable for you state that we cannot draw any conclusions from the information we have.  We have contemporaneous sources that directly address the issue at hand.   That is about the best we can ever hope for.

According to various contemporaneous newspaper accounts, Campbell laid out the course.   So far as I know the only account contradicting this is the 1897 account by the member stating that Bush and Parker laid it out, but you inexplicably refuse to give that version any credence.  

Unless you can come up with any contemporaneous source material suggesting otherwise, then that is where we stand for now.  

[Terry Lavin]

We're well past, "Jane, you ignorant slut!" time...

[PThomas]

We're well past, "Jane, you ignorant slut!" time...

i think we need a member of the judicial branch to sift through the evidence and rule for one side...

[Joe Bausch]

We're well past, "Jane, you ignorant slut!" time...

i think we need a member of the judicial branch to sift through the evidence and rule for one side...

Dear Paul,

   This is a very good idea.  I think Judge Wapner would love take on this challenging case.

Sincerely,
Doug Llewellyn

P.S.  Please see Rusty as you leave as he has some papers for you to sign.

-----------------

[Jeff_Brauer]

How funny!  To be honest, I thought about posting the same idea a week or so ago, and didn't because I didn't want to upset David.  But, because he is a non practicing lawyer, from time to time, I get the sense he is bringing courtroom tactics to the debate, which may or may not be appropriate.

On all sides, we are debating essentially "what is permissable evidence" so Judge Judy may have been helpful!

[PThomas]

We're well past, "Jane, you ignorant slut!" time...

i think we need a member of the judicial branch to sift through the evidence and rule for one side...

Dear Paul,

   This is a very good idea.  I think Judge Wapner would love take on this challenging case.

Sincerely,
Doug Llewellyn

P.S.  Please see Rusty as you leave as he has some papers for you to sign.

-----------------

ha! ....and Terry is a nice guy so of course if i was king i wouldnt assign him to this case....

i wonder what happened to the good judge Wapner and Doug L...

[DMoriarty]

Nice call on letting a judge decide rather than a jury.  Given that one side is basing their position on the hope that somewhere out there some support exists, I doubt their case would make it to a jury.

But going before a judge wouldn't be quite right either.   For a few of us at least this isn't about winning, convincing a judge to side with us, or defeating the other side, it is about figuring out what really happened.  Despite what some judges might think, this cannot be determined by judicial decision or decree, popular vote, or mandate from a club or someone else.  This isn't a trial, election, or a popularity contest.  Another opinion has no bearing on what really happened.

That all said, it might be a useful exercise if both sides briefly listed out the actual factual basis for the various claims.  And by factual basis, I don't mean reference to someone else's speculation, I mean actual contemporaneous evidence of what happened.  

Who goes first?

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I'm happy for you to have the last word.

Evidence in the OJ murder case didn't get this much scrutiny.

No need for a judge or jury;  anyone interested can make up their own mind and that's probably as it should be in these minor matters.

[DMoriarty]

Why not a provide a concise list of the contemporaneous support backing up your understanding of what happened? That way anyone curious can cut straight to the heart of the matter and make up their own minds.  It would be cruel to make them sift through this mess.

So how about a brief list of  the contemporaneous source material indicating that Appleton, Gardner, and Merrill laid out the course?  

Surely after 43 pages you can do this, can't you?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()