What about Myopia Hunt and Eastward Ho?

[Peter Pallotta]

Randy - hey, that's really neat, that the article proved so useful to you. And if I'm understanding you right, it's also neat that only those two elements of the course Fowler described in 1921 were surprises to those who know the course today.

Tom - I'd honestly not thought about it the way you did, maybe because of the reference (in another article) to the on-going addition of bunkers.  To me, noting that the course was little changed in 30 years was meant to be a testament to Leeds' understanding (and very early understanding) of the sound/fundamental principles of golf course architecture.

Peter

[Michael Powers]

Myopia is inland with rolling hillsides throughout, while Eastward Ho! is a peninsula that sticks out into Pleasant Bay with very steep elevation changes.  The biggest challenge I find in playing Eastward Ho! (especially if the wind is up) is that you are faced with many severely uphill, downhill, and sidehill lies in the fairways.  You may have to hit a 100 yard shot straight into a 20 mph wind from a severe uphill lie to a small, well bunkered green.  I would give the bunkering edge to Myopia, especially on holes like 4, 9, 10, and 18.  Deap, narrow little pot bunkers abound, so steep that they have stairs to get you in and out.  The greens at both courses are severe.  Eastward Ho!'s greens have more back to front slope than Myopia in general and Myopia's greens seem more varied with more internal slope than Eastward Ho!.  Myopia has more long par 4's, but some of Eastward Ho!'s 380 par 4's can be monsters in the wind.  As much as I love 3, 9, and 16 for par 3's at Myopia (especailly 9), I give the edge in par 3's to Eastward Ho!.  #4 is nasty with unreal views of Pleasant Bay.  Over and left and 4 is the best score you can make.  #7 is my favorite hole on the course.  The tee is on the beach, severe uphill and usually into the wind.  I think the card says 180 and I have hit 3-wood.  When the wind is up it is like a par 3.5.  #10 is a sleeper, long with O.B. creeping in on the left and 15 is a cool little short.

To experience a day at either club is a pleasure.  You take a step back in time at Myopia with the grand clubhouse and wrap around porch.  Eastward Ho! is obviously the king of understated elegance on the Cape, modest club house, old beat up lockers, giant plank floor in the cozy main room with the fireplace burning.  That reminds me, I gotta look at my calendar and get back over to both of these spots.

[Paul_Turner]

Noel Freeman wrote an excellent article on Eastward Ho!, with historical information, in Neil Crafter's "Golf Architecture" magazine.  Worth checking out.

[TEPaul]

PeterP:

A. Linde Fowler was a premier Boston sportswriter from that time. I believe he wrote for the Boston Herald that was always considered to be the better or best newspaper in town for people such as those who populated these kinds of clubs (apparently, in comparision, the Boston Globe was considered to be something of a "rag").

A. Linde Fowler also wrote a very fine and edifying article about the creation of Frederick Hood's Kittansett GC in the early 1920s and how it was an excellent example of Philadelphia architect William Flynn's ideas on what was described by Fowler of the new "scientific" golf architecture.

[TEPaul]

"I found the same thing interesting about the lack of change. The club history and the commonly told story has Leeds tinkering with the course during his lifetime, but the truth is the changes he, which were quite comprehensive, were made a relatively short window of time. The other interesting thing in your quote, which you also won't find in the clubhistory, is the comment about Leeds making trips (plural) abroad to study the most famous British holes to mold his ideas at home. You will not find that in the Myopia lore."


PeterP;

I find that remark by Tom MacWood pretty misleading.

First of all, what changes by Leeds is he talking about?

From 1896 until 1898 Leeds made significant changes to the Myopia course by taking it from its original 1894 iteration (which is not completely known today) to what was called Leed's "Long Nine". This was the course on which the 1898 US Open was held.

Following that Leeds decided the club must have an eighteen hole course to be an official course and a good one. Consequently, he added nine more holes and the new 18 hole course was ready to be tested and was tested by a number of very good players in the spring of 1900. It was deemed very satisfactory by the USGA and it held the 1901 US Open and two more US Opens by 1908. 

Leeds did make changes to that 18 hole course but exactly what and when isn't all that well known today, as far as I can tell. He changed the approach to the new #10 (and that green from the punchbowl green he had to what that green is today was changed considerably later for a particular reason). Leeds made changes to the 13th green and he moved it left on that ridge but seemingly was never that happy with its extreme shallowness. He made changes to the 5th which had some real problems with wetness and I believe he probably made some changes to the 6th. At one time #16 was a short downhill par 4 of about 250 yards to the present green and he changed that to the par 3 it is today.

How much and at what timeframe Leeds continued to add bunkering to the course is not that well known (although certain items are such as the bunkering he installed in front of #15) but one should probably assume he continued to do that as long as he remained the Captain of the Green at Myopia which was until 1918. That was essentially 22 years of Leeds working with the golf course).

As far as the "Lore" of Myopia surrounding Leeds or the course, I doubt Mr. MacWoods has much idea what that is because he'd never been to Myopia and knows noone there and would have no way of knowing those things.

I think his knock on Edward Weeks's history book that was written in 1975 is a bit unfair when he criticizes him for not including various things about the architectural evolution of the course and Leeds trip(S) abroad. (Weeks's history book does mention Leeds trip abroad in 1902 when Leeds declared he was satisfied with the course compared to what he saw abroad).

The fact is Weeks's Myopia history book is less than 150 pages and the amount of space he devotes to golf and the golf course is not more than about a third of the book. Myopia was initially and primarily a hunt and polo club and that gets a lot of attention and space in his book. Tennis was important to the club too and that gets plenty of space. Mr. MacWood claims he's seen Weeks history book but somehow I doubt that and I doubt he has it now or can refer to it.

The fact is Myopia, the club, has elements and items of the architectural evolution and "lore" in their archives which were not in Weeks's book (Weeks's intention was obviously not to just write a huge book on all the architectural details of the evolution of the course that might interest people on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com; it was written as a general history on all the areas and aspects of Myopia Hunt Club including riding, hunting, polo and tennis). Therefore, Mr. MacWood's contention or implication that Myopia does not know or understand its architectural history is nothing more than what Mr. MacWood's contention and implication has always been on here in this vein----eg it's total bullshit, because he is in no position to know and I very much doubt he ever will be. This is most important for people reading his posts on Myopia to know and understand! 

It is a shame that Leeds's so-called "scrap book" that Weeks clearly had and referred to when he wrote his 1975 history book is now lost or gone but there are enough people at Myopia today who remember it and remember the way the course was over the years. These things Mr. MacWood does not know, and he shouldn't act as if he does and he certainly shouldn't act as if he knows the club doesn't know them or include them in its over-all history, all of which is archived.

[Thomas MacWood]

"I found the same thing interesting about the lack of change. The club history and the commonly told story has Leeds tinkering with the course during his lifetime, but the truth is the changes he, which were quite comprehensive, were made a relatively short window of time. The other interesting thing in your quote, which you also won't find in the clubhistory, is the comment about Leeds making trips (plural) abroad to study the most famous British holes to mold his ideas at home. You will not find that in the Myopia lore."


PeterP;

I find that remark by Tom MacWood pretty misleading.

First of all, what changes by Leeds is he talking about?

From 1896 until 1898 Leeds made significant changes to the Myopia course by taking it from its original 1894 iteration (which is not completely known today) to what was called Leed's "Long Nine". This was the course on which the 1898 US Open was held.
What changes did Leeds make between 1896 and 1898?

Following that Leeds decided the club must have an eighteen hole course to be an official course and a good one. Consequently, he added nine more holes and the new 18 hole course was ready to be tested and was tested by a number of very good players in the spring of 1900. It was deemed very satisfactory by the USGA and it held the 1901 US Open and two more US Opens by 1908. 

Leeds did make changes to that 18 hole course but exactly what and when isn't all that well known today, as far as I can tell. He changed the approach to the new #10 (and that green from the punchbowl green he had to what that green is today was changed considerably later for a particular reason). Leeds made changes to the 13th green and he moved it left on that ridge but seemingly was never that happy with its extreme shallowness. He made changes to the 5th which had some real problems with wetness and I believe he probably made some changes to the 6th. At one time #16 was a short downhill par 4 of about 250 yards to the present green and he changed that to the par 3 it is today.

I would disagree. The changes are well documented, maybe not in the club history, but the information is out there.

How much and at what timeframe Leeds continued to add bunkering to the course is not that well known (although certain items are such as the bunkering he installed in front of #15) but one should probably assume he continued to do that as long as he remained the Captain of the Green at Myopia which was until 1918. That was essentially 22 years of Leeds working with the golf course).

Again, I disagree. There is no need to assume anything when you have documentation. Too much assuming and not enough fact finding.

Linde Fowler's comments are right on the money about the changes and the influence of Leeds trips abroad.

As far as the "Lore" of Myopia surrounding Leeds or the course, I doubt Mr. MacWoods has much idea what that is because he'd never been to Myopia and knows noone there and would have no way of knowing those things.

I think his knock on Edward Weeks's history book that was written in 1975 is a bit unfair when he criticizes him for not including various things about the architectural evolution of the course and Leeds trip(S) abroad. (Weeks's history book does mention Leeds trip abroad in 1902 when Leeds declared he was satisfied with the course compared to what he saw abroad).

Supposedly Weeks relied upon Leeds' scrapbook, which you sometimes refer to as a diary, for his information. If it were diary one would think it would contain specific information on his travels, and most likely information on his changes to the course. One would also expect there would be some mention of Willie Campbell, who was the pro at Myopia in 1896. I'm not sure exactly Weeks was looking at, scrapbook or diary or something else, but whatever it was it has a lot informational holes.

The fact is Weeks's Myopia history book is less than 150 pages and the amount of space he devotes to golf and the golf course is not more than about a third of the book. Myopia was initially and primarily a hunt and polo club and that gets a lot of attention and space in his book. Tennis was important to the club too and that gets plenty of space. Mr. MacWood claims he's seen Weeks history book but somehow I doubt that and I doubt he has it now or can refer to it.

The fact is Myopia, the club, has elements and items of the architectural evolution and "lore" in their archives which were not in Weeks's book (Weeks's intention was obviously not to just write a huge book on all the architectural details of the evolution of the course that might interest people on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com; it was written as a general history on all the areas and aspects of Myopia Hunt Club including riding, hunting, polo and tennis). Therefore, Mr. MacWood's contention or implication that Myopia does not know or understand its architectural history is nothing more than what Mr. MacWood's contention and implication has always been on here in this vein----eg it's total bullshit, because he is in no position to know and I very much doubt he ever will be. This is most important for people reading his posts on Myopia to know and understand! 

It is a shame that Leeds's so-called "scrap book" that Weeks clearly had and referred to when he wrote his 1975 history book is now lost or gone but there are enough people at Myopia today who remember it and remember the way the course was over the years. These things Mr. MacWood does not know, and he shouldn't act as if he does and he certainly shouldn't act as if he knows the club doesn't know them or include them in its over-all history, all of which is archived.

What people reading this thread should know is that the history of golfing developments in Boston are not really that well known at present. Boston golf architecture was more important to American golf architecture than what is generally accepted today, and Willie Cambpell was intrumental in the development.

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

In that post above (with your red responses ) there is nothing I can see that is even worth my responding to. As per usual, your comments are just generalities which have very little meaning. If you're interested in something specific, then say what that is and we can talk about it but not until.

I doubt you have much understanding of what the original nine at Myopia was (I doubt the club even knows completely what it was. To even begin to understand that one needs a pretty good familiarity with the site and who owned what and when and for someone like you who's never even been there understanding that is virtually impossible) and I doubt you even understand what Leeds's "Long Nine" was. Without that basis you would hardly understand the details of the 1898-1900 creation of the eighteen hole golf course by Leeds.

As far as Leeds mentioning Campbell in his diary (scrapbook)---had he done that in any significant way at all I have very little doubt that Edward Weeks would have reported that in his history book. For someone like you to assume Leeds must have mentioned Campbell in his diary for some reason is about as speculative as one can get but you've gotten very good at that on here.

[Thomas MacWood]

First of all you are the only person I know who calls a scrapbook a diary. A scarpbook is usually a collection of clipped out articles and other memorabilia. Second apparently there is nothing in his scrapbook that chronicles Leeds' travels or any changes to the course, which makes you wonder what good it would be even it was ever found. Third I'm quite familar with original nine, the second nine, and the changes Leeds made to the course during his tenure. I asked the question to show how little information on the evolution of the course you have at your disposal.

[TEPaul]

"First of all you are the only person I know who calls a scrapbook a diary. A scarpbook is usually a collection of clipped out articles and other memorabilia. Second apparently there is nothing in his scrapbook that chronicles Leeds' travels or any changes to the course, which makes you wonder what good it would be even it was ever found. Third I'm quite familar with original nine, the second nine, and the changes Leeds made to the course during his tenure. I asked the question to show how little information on the evolution of the course you have at your disposal."


Mr. MacWood:

Well, the fact I'm the only one YOU know who refers to the Leeds "scrapbook" as his diary could be explained because you've never been to Myopia and you know noone there. Myopia calls the Leeds scrapbook a diary and apparently always has. They have some pretty interesting names and terms for some of their records and historica "assets". For instance, I'm quite sure you have never heard of their "Run Book" and have no idea what it is.

I'm happy to know you are quite familiar with the original nine because frankly I'm not and I'm not sure the club is either but I am familiar with Leed's "long Nine". Perhaps you could explain to all of us where you think those original nine holes were and what their numbers were in relation to the holes on the course today or even in relation to Leeds's "Long Nine."

Weeks's history book explains some of them are not known and the ones he does explain don't make that much sense frankly, at least not to me if one knows the land of that club and what it once was as well as the fact that he explains the uphill holes were not done until 1896-98. I've already posted on here what Weeks's book said in that vein. But maybe you know something they don't. 

However, something tells me you will probably say you know all about those original nine holes but never even try to explain them. As usual, that only means to me you actually have no idea at all.

I'd be glad to try to go over it with you and discuss it with you on here but you'd probably need some of the drawings and documents in Weeks's history book to understand it and I doubt you have that or have ever even seen it. I have little doubt you'll simply dredge up this ridiculous "pledge" of yours AGAIN you've mentioned a number of times as an excuse again, and another attempt to cover up and deflect your real lack of understanding of Myopia's early architectural history.

But again, if you want to try to figure out where all of those original nine holes were and what they were I'd be willing to discuss it with you. It's potentially interesting of course.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
According to Weeks the scrapbook details Leeds' 1902 trip to the UK, yet there is no mention of where he went or what courses he visited. There is no mention of changes to the course we he returned. There is no mention of any prior or subsequent trips. Does that sound like a diary to you?

Weeks claims the Long nine was a completely new nine and designed by Leeds in the spring of 1896. Willie Campbell was the pro at Myopia in 1896. Does it make sense that club would turn to Leeds (who was a brand new member) when they had the most active golf architect in New England and the most respected professional in America working in house?

[TEPaul]

"TE
According to Weeks the scrapbook details Leeds' 1902 trip to the UK, yet there is no mention of where he went or what courses he visited."


Mr. MacWood:

Is that right? Then I guess you must be reading a different Edward Weeks Myopia history book then I am. I think the truth is you've never read Weeks's book at all.


"There is no mention of changes to the course we he returned. There is no mention of any prior or subsequent trips. Does that sound like a diary to you?"


I don't know because I've never seen Leeds's "scrapbook", and obviously neither have you. But Edward Weeks certainly had it because there're a number of Myopia members I've spoken to who remember it and who knew Weeks well and remember when he wrote his book and used Leeds's "scrapbook" for some of his source material. Seeing as what Weeks did quote in his history book, I'd have to say Leeds's so-called "scrapbook" most certainly was a diary or else Weeks was just making up a whole bunch of quotations out of the clear blue sky!  The fact that Weeks did not exactly include Leeds's entire "scrapbook" in his history of Myopia really says nothing----certainly not about Leeds's "scrapbook." As I said earlier, Weeks's Myopia history was about the entire history of the club and a lot of that includes hunting and polo and tennis. Probably only one quarter to one third of the book is devoted to golf and the book is just 150 pages long. This certainly doesn't mean there was anything lacking or inaccurate about Myopia's history and their archives although you seem to see it that way because you're only looking at Week's book apparently.



"Weeks claims the Long nine was a completely new nine and designed by Leeds in the spring of 1896. Willie Campbell was the pro at Myopia in 1896. Does it make sense that club would turn to Leeds (who was a brand new member) when they had the most active golf architect in New England and the most respected professional in America working in house?"



No, Weeks does not claim that which is just another reason why you couldn't possibly have read his book and cannot possibly be familiar with its details.

Again, the club seems to have no record of Campbell being its pro in 1896. The history book does mention that Robert White was its greenkeeper/pro in 1897 and perhaps 1896. He was followed in that capacity by longtime Myopia pro/greenkeeper John Jones.

You say that Campbell was the most active architect in New England at that time and the most respected professional in America working in-house, but THAT, Mr. MacWood, definitely does not make THAT an historical fact or reality. YOU also said in 1910 H.H. Barker was the second best architect in America and I doubt anyone anywhere sees much historic justification for or historical support in that.

Apparently you seem to want to pass off much of your speculation and speculative opinion as an historical fact or that it is historical fact supported by some actual evidence. I think there are enough on here, thankfully, who see right through that right from the git-go and thankfully are calling you on it. And it's a damn good thing they are because it is not credible and not an accurate account or understanding of those times.

Yes, it makes total sense that a club like Myopia at that time would turn to Leeds. He was probably the best amateur golfer in the area at that time and they respected that immensely. That was the beginning of the American age of the "amateur/sportsman" designer that would see remarkable projects and courses that are still so famous today started right up until just before WW1. It is an age of a type of designer you apparently just aren't capable of either understanding or understanding the reasons why it happened like that at that time.

Your penchant and inclination seems to always be to try to find someone else who must have basically done it for those men but that is not the way it happened----that is not the reality of that time and its history.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
Weeks mentions Scotland and then speculates about St. Andrews, but no details about courses he visited and no mention of England. No mention of the changes to the course. No mention of prior or subsequent trips. Does that sound like a diary to you?

Weeks implies the Long Nine was more or less a new nine but the fact is the Long Nine was almost identical to the original nine, only about 200 yards longer. It is clear to me Weeks had no idea how the course changed over the years.

Campbell was the most experienced AND most active golf architect in New England in 1896. He was also the most respected professional in America in 1896, and one of the most respected in the world (Willie Dunn, Joe Lloyd and WF Davis were some of the others). The fact that Weeks was not aware Campbell was the pro at Myopia says a lot IMO. Do you know how easy it is to confirm that fact?

Leeds wasn't even the best amateur at Myopia in 1896, that would have been Quincy Shaw. Shaw held the course records at Essex County and Brookline in 1896 (CB Macdonald held the course record at Myopia), and was second to MJ Henry in the 1895 club championship at Myopia and won the 1895 club championship at Brookline (Leeds was in the field). The following year Shaw won the Meadowbrook Cup, defeating all the best amateurs in NY.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Weeks mentions Scotland and then speculates about St. Andrews, but no details about courses he visited and no mention of England. No mention of the changes to the course. No mention of prior or subsequent trips. Does that sound like a diary to you?"


Mr. MacWood:

I really don't know why this is so hard for you to figure out.

Leeds's so called "scrapbook" was a diary by Leeds (he died in 1930 by the way) and Weeks used it in his 1975 Myopia history book but Weeks by no means reprinted Leeds's entire "Scrapbook" (diary) in his 1975 Myopia history book in which he probably devoted around fifty pages to golf and the golf course of a 150 page book. For some reason you seem incapable of understanding the difference between Leeds's "scrapbook" (diary) and Edward Weeks's 1975 Myopia history book.   

They are not the same thing but apparently you for some odd reason think they are or should be.

[TEPaul]

"Weeks implies the Long Nine was more or less a new nine but the fact is the Long Nine was almost identical to the original nine, only about 200 yards longer. It is clear to me Weeks had no idea how the course changed over the years."


Mr. MacWood:

Weeks implies nothing of the kind. He mentions that holes #2, 8, 9 (an iteration of today's #10 tee and 11th green that was an "alps" hole), #12 and perhaps #13 were part of the original nine but that the uphill holes were not built until 1896 (the uphill holes are #14, 15 and 16). Weeks also mentions that some of the original nine holes were on Dr. S. A. Hopkins property or on the fringes of it. Apparently you don't understand where Dr Hopkins property was.

[TEPaul]

"Do you know how easy it is to confirm that fact?"

No. Mr. MacWood, frankly I don't know how easy it is to confirm that fact! Why don't you just try showing SOMEONE how easy it is to confirm that fact by confirming it with SOMETHING solid other than your opinion and your speculation? Maybe you might try getting off this fucking high-horse of yours or whatever this "pledge" bullshit of yours is an start showing SOMEBODY what the ACTUAL evidence of any of that is!!!

I think the time is well past now where you stop expecting ANYONE at any golf club or on this website or anywhere else, for that matter, to just take your word for some of your speculations. Don't you?

These little petty research competitions you seem to be so intent on perpetuating on this website with me or Wayne or Mike Cirba or anyone else are incredibly boring and are truly showing how transparent what you are really up to on this website is all about.

[TEPaul]

"Leeds wasn't even the best amateur at Myopia in 1896, that would have been Quincy Shaw. Shaw held the course records at Essex County and Brookline in 1896 (CB Macdonald held the course record at Myopia), and was second to MJ Henry in the 1895 club championship at Myopia and won the 1895 club championship at Brookline (Leeds was in the field). The following year Shaw won the Meadowbrook Cup, defeating all the best amateurs in NY."




In the 1898 US OPEN at MYOPIA Leeds finished eighth in the tournament and FIRST AMONG THE AMATEURS in the US OPEN (including Shaw), Mr. MacWood.    

I guess THAT didn't get anyone's attention at MYOPIA or ANYWHERE ELSE, HUH, Mr. MacWood?!?     

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

When one starts adding up ALL your speculations and incorrect information on this website and particularly with a couple of famous courses and clubs you have just got to be the biggest historic REVISIONIST this website has ever seen! I'm just glad there are some on here who take the time to call you on some of the things you've tried to pass off as fact on this website.

My GOD, you find a couple of articles on MacDonald/Whigam on their advice to MCC (articles and information the club has always had) and you find some article in an old rag like the Boston Globe and you assume these things give you some right and reason to try to redo the architectural histories of a couple of famous American golf courses!?!

You're dangerous to American golf architectural history and I'm going to watch you like a hawk from now on and I suggest a number of others do the same! 

You're dangerous you are such a bad analyst and this thread is proving that AGAIN in spades!

Of course, I'll be more than willing to retract some of this if you'd simply bother to show SOMETHING to SOMEONE on here that is semi-solid historically or has some meaning and is more than just your OPINION and your SPECULATION! This "PLEDGE" of yours (not to show anyone anything) has gotten to be as transparent as ultra clear glass! 

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
Five consecutive posts...that's got to be some kind of record.

Weeks only used part of the scrapbook/diary? I see. He didn't think it was important to mention the courses Leeds visited in the UK or the changes he made to Myopia following the trip or his other trips abroad? Whatever you say.

I understand exactly where Hopkins' property was (and when it was secured), and I know it had nothing to do with original nine/Long nine.

What does the 1898 US Open have to with your contention Leeds was the best amateur golfer in Boston the spring of 1896 when Weeks claimed he designed the Long Nine? Again Weeks' story makes no sense, why would they turn to Leeds in 1896 when Campbell was in house. By 1896 Campbell had laid out Brookline, Essex County, Myopia, Wollaston, and Franklin Park...arguably the five top courses in Boston.

Lets face it Weeks' history of Myopia was in need of revision, just as the history Merion, PVGC and Heartwellville needed some revising. Its no great shame, there is a lot new information available today that was not easily accessable in 1975. As I've always said we've only scratched the surface of documenting golf architecture history. It seems like new information is uncovered every week.

[Jay Flemma]

I also enjoyed the Golf Illustrated article.  Nice find, Peter.

[Noel Freeman]

Noel Freeman wrote an excellent article on Eastward Ho!, with historical information, in Neil Crafter's "Golf Architecture" magazine.  Worth checking out.

Paul, thanks for that.. I think the closest courses to Eastward Ho! that come closest to re-creating it via landform and shot values are Royal Hague, Southerndown and Bull Bay..

Tom Macwood- the club is very cognizant of its history and the fact that Park was first contacted.  I think Fowler's design was very much influenced by work he did at Bull Bay in Wales.  The plateau greens and crazy landforms there (mainly rock escarpments) would have prepared him for what he saw in Chatham.  Bull Bay (on the isle of Angelsey) was built in 1913 or so (or so they told me last month when I visited).. I have not done the relevant research on it but I also think Fowler's visit to update Southerndown could have influenced him (Paul Turner and I found some info on this as he was there before Colt who was there in 1920.. I believe Fowler was there early perhaps 1909ish)..The sandy loam soil that Fowler refers to is obviously the vestige of the glacial terminal moraine from the last Ice Age.  What I find interesting is the similarities to Sourtherndown and the imbued sand based soil from the lower Ogmore Valley which blew on top of the limestone base there.  Obviously, Fowler knew enough to leave this contours alone (so did Willie Fernie, another architect perhaps due some respect?)..

Unfortunately I did not snap pictures of Bull Bay but really think Fowler's influence on E. Ho came from this site along with greens placement.  When you play a hole like #4 or #7 at Eastward Ho! (the front 9 par 3s) you can see the influences.

I think Bull Bay is one of the hidden gems of Wales.. there are a few holes there wholly unoriginal and some horrific tree plantings on two holes but i was blown away...

Also, no one can write about Eastward Ho! without talking about Keith Foster who did outstanding work here and Frank Hancock the super who came from Shinnecock.  Frank really got Eastward Ho's turf and greens to play perfectly thru an aerification process in the run-up areas in order to let the ball run and give ground game options.  Also the greens committee at E. Ho had the foresight to support the restoration/renovation plans and implement them while having to work with the constraints of the local coastal commision.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Five consecutive posts...that's got to be some kind of record."

Mr. MacWood:

Perhaps but I do it that way with you now since you told me you were incapable of reading anything that's not short. Does this have anything to do with your off-the-wall speculations on Myopia or Merion?

[TEPaul]

"Weeks only used part of the scrapbook/diary? I see. He didn't think it was important to mention the courses Leeds visited in the UK or the changes he made to Myopia following the trip or his other trips abroad? Whatever you say."


Mr. MacWood:

You're asking me what Weeks used in his book? I see. Well, I guess this proves you've never seen it as you said you have. That's interesting that you criticize a book you've never even seen. Just another example of thoroughly incomplete and bizarre research of the history of another famous American course.

[TEPaul]

"I understand exactly where Hopkins' property was (and when it was secured), and I know it had nothing to do with original nine/Long nine."


Mr. MacWood:

Do you indeed? 

Then where were all the nine holes of the original 1894 nine if the uphill holes were not done until 1896 and some of the original nine holes were on the fringes of Dr. Hopkins land? Do you think you can even come close to answering that?

It is true that none of the "Long Nine" holes were on Dr. Hopkins land but some of the original nine holes were.

 

[TEPaul]

"Again Weeks' story makes no sense, why would they turn to Leeds in 1896 when Campbell was in house. By 1896 Campbell had laid out Brookline, Essex County, Myopia, Wollaston, and Franklin Park...arguably the five top courses in Boston."

Mr. MacWood:

I realize it makes no sense to you and it probably never will. And that is why I doubt you will ever be able to understand what this age of those marvelous "amateur/sportsmen" designers and the incredible golf courses and architecture they designed was all about.

The likes of Leeds (Myopia), Emmet (GCGC), the Fowneses (Oakmont), Macdonald (NGLA), Crump (Pine Valley), Wilson (Merion), Thomas (Whitemarsh) etc certainly had the money and could have turned to people like Campbell or Barker to do it for them but they didn't do that, did they? They decided to do it themselves for what they obviously thought were very good reasons----eg they could do it a lot better if they did it themselves. They all did that and history has proven how right they were even from the git-go even if they all took a considerable amount of time on those projects!

It's too bad you are incapable of understanding this or getting the reasons why. Obviously, this must be why on almost all those famous course projects you try to find some peripheral person or people to those projects and completely exaggerate their importance and completely exaggerate what they did (if anything) for those projects and those "amateur/sportsmen designers.

[Thomas MacWood]

"Weeks only used part of the scrapbook/diary? I see. He didn't think it was important to mention the courses Leeds visited in the UK or the changes he made to Myopia following the trip or his other trips abroad? Whatever you say."


Mr. MacWood:

You're asking me what Weeks used in his book? I see. Well, I guess this proves you've never seen it as you said you have. That's interesting that you criticize a book you've never even seen. Just another example of thoroughly incomplete and bizarre research of the history of another famous American course.

What I'm saying is your explanation makes no sense. You have no idea what the scrapbook contained, you are just speculating that he cherry picked some of the info and there was a lot more he left out.

Yes, I can answer the question about the original nine/Long Nine, unfortunately...

One of the reasons Weeks' story makes no sense is because it is wrong. He had no idea that Campbell designed the original nine, he had no idea when Campbell came to Myopia as the pro and he had no idea when Leeds first became involved with designing the course. That is a major flaw would you not agree.

I don't get too caught up in your amateur/sportsmen invention mostly because it leads to jamming round pegs into square holes, but you've never been one to let the facts get in the way of a good story. I prefer the facts because in my experience the truth is always more interesting than the myth. The circumstance of each of these cases should be evaluated individually, and I believe in the process our appreciation of many of these guys will be enhanced....although not all of them.

On a side not, actually Leeds was not a wealthy man.