“Now since I am clearly not Tom Paul, and I readily would like some help from you on this one, can you tell me on this thread what proof you have that Willie was head pro at Myopia? I am quite certain that there are others out here who would like to know as well. That it helps TP in any way should be irrelevant... It's time to start going above the fray...”
Thanks for that my esteemed friend, Mr Philip Young:
I don’t want any credit for any of this. I’m just interested in knowing if Willie Campbell actually was the pro exclusively at Myopia, even for a brief time. And of course I certainly would like to know if he had anything to do with the design of the original holes (some of which seemingly remain in whole or in part to this day). And I most certainly do know Myopia would too.
I can see Mr. MacWood doesn’t want to help me at all in this way but one might think he would want to help Myopia and just the general endeavor of accuracy of the history of American architecture and architects. Perhaps you may be able to get him to whisper in your ear what it is he thinks he’s got that's so solid about his statement about Campbell and Myopia.
If he won’t whisper it in your ear I would encourage him to consider doing what this following post offers that I put on here yesterday but which Mr. MacWood ignored:
“Tom MacWood:
Again, I'm very interested in what you may have on Willie Campbell and Myopia and I'm quite sure the club would be too if it really is of some significance. It's important that it is significant and not another trumped up expectation raising charade like this entire Merion/Macdonald/Barker thing or whatever the hell it was supposed to be.
Some of these people involved in this way from these clubs like Merion or Myopia are some pretty bright people and they know their stuff on their club and the details of its history a whole lot better and more comprehensively than you might imagine. The fact that you apparently know none of them may explain why you don't understand that. Believe me, I can appreciate that.
So consider carefully if whatever you have on Campbell and Myopia really is of some significance to the course's original architecture. You might also consider that when a history writer like Weeks who belonged to Myopia for years and was definitely no slouch with researching and writing as he was the editor of Atlantic Monthly, for God's Sake, writes that the original holes of Myopia were laid out by club members Appleton, Merrill and Gardner, it has to mean something significant as he was taking it right off the club's old contemporaneous board material. I don't think Myopia or me or anyone on here is going to go for some weak explanation such as they were all mistaken or glorifying themselves which seems to be your take on the best original club source material on Merion.
Nobody really buys that ridiculous rationale that the club totally lied about a Hugh Wilson or a Merrill, Appleton and Gardner so don't use an explanation like that to promote Campbell---nobody will buy it any more than Merion did. I really hate to say this on here but most of these people with these clubs are a whole lot more level-headed and logical about architectural information than some of the people on here are---eg I offer as an example the preposterous "tautology" argument offered apparently to keep the Merion charade going by its defensive author.
Believe me, nobody wants to go through another charade like that again. I know Myopia doesn't anymore that Merion did when they read that charade. They had pretty high expectations going in but their collective response once they read it was sort of like: "Are they kidding, who's going to buy this type of stretch and lack of logic?"
They are not hiding anything or glorifying anybody or anything so try not to use that weak rationale either---nobody will buy it. They don't want to waste time on an insignificant charade because someone they've never heard of is trying to make something out of nothing just to get noticed or make a name for himself. If only something solid and significant was offered but it never was and now clearly it is because there just never was anything significant anyway.
So, please, this time if you have something that you really believe is significant that doesn't involve you claiming everyone else is lying or glorifying or concealing except you, let's get on with it.
I understand you don't want to deal with me on this as you've said that on here already about five times. You don't have to deal with me. I don't want any credit for anything, I just want to see that the most accurate architectural history whatever it will be gets buttoned down someday.
So my suggestion is that you put whatever you have on Campbell and whatever he did architecturally at Myopia if you really do think it is of significance---eg a Boston Globe article or whatever on here under a Myopia thead (I suggest you start it yourself). I will see to it that they see it even if they might anyway. That way they can all see it came from you and you can get all the credit for it.
Believe me I certainly do understand that on here and some other places information, particularly solid and significant information on architecture, is real currency and those who provide it get respect for producing it. It's clear that's what you're into as you've said it yourself on here.
So just do it on here on a thread you start and let's see what you have. I think this site would like to see what it is instead of this constant cat and mouse game. I know I would and I know Myopia and the USGA would too.
So come on, let's see what you've got. Take all the credit for it, that's fine, but just produce it so it can be analyzed and considered. I don't know how any of us are going to explain the architectural significance of Appleton, Merrill and Gardner but that's a subject of another day. This is about Willie Campbell and Myopia and what if anything he did there architecturally.
If all you have is just a Boston Globe article let's also hope the reporter was good and pretty closely connected to Myopia!
"