Willie Campbell & Myopia

[Mike Cirba]

Here's perhaps a better example Joe Bausch found some time back.

In this one, seemingly even Charles Macdonald falls prey to using the term "lay out" incorrectly.   

[Mike Cirba]

This similar one Joe Bausch found mentions that Macdonald believed he'd only need about 110 of the 205 acres for the golf course at the time he bought the property, and was going to use the other ground for approx. 1.5 acre plots for the Founders, as well as 5 acres for the Clubhouse and surrounds.

[DMoriarty]

David,

Are you stating that it is your belief that Campbell planned the course before he staked it out on the ground? If so, when did he do that and when did he then stake it out?

No. I am not stating that.

__________________________________________________

Kevin,

While not nearly rising to the level of the posts to which you vaguely refer, Tom MacWood's remark was impolite and uncalled for. Had Jeff Brauer and Phillip Young not already turned this his comment into its own special sub-topic, I might well have said something.  Perhaps your comments about only selectively speaking up depending upon the identity of the wrongdoer should have been directed to them as well?

As for your post itself, while I disagree with the insulting nature of TomM's response, I might understand his frustration.  I cannot speak for TomM, but as I see it (and as I tried to explain immediately above your post)  conclusory opinions do little to advance the conversation, unless they are accompanied by a sound understanding and presentation of the source material backing up that opinion.   That is why I keep asking Mike Cirba to provide me with facts that support his position.

Let me ask you the same thing.  We have these articles which stated that Willie Campbell laid out the course.   So what is your factual basis for doubting that Campbell laid out the course?  

__________________________

Jeff Brauer

Whether or not your comments fail a "reasoned and measured" test, they contain assumptions and/or factual inaccuracies about Myopia's early course.

__________________________________________________________

Mike Cirba,

Please, please do not turn this into another crazy exploration of those 1906 and 1907 NGLA articles.  Again and again you seem to forget that much of the information in those articles is from Macdonald's agreement drafted in 1904, long before he found the NGLA property.  We've been through them a half dozen times at least.   Go back and read my responses to you on those numerous other threads.

Besides, you are misrepresenting my understanding of what happened at NGLA and of the verb "to lay out," but this isn't the place to get into it as it relates to NGLA.  

To "lay out" generally meant to place the course on the ground.   With the early simple courses, this often meant that the the course was staked out or otherwise marked off on the ground, then maybe the  greens were prepared and they golfed.  Myopia was initially a very simple course requiring little else than marking off the course and preparing the greens and maybe the tees.

As time went on the process became more complicated and "to lay out" became more ambiguous.   Sometimes "to lay out" referred to construction, and sometimes it referred to marking off the course on the ground before construction.   I think this confusion is understandable given the evolution of golf design from simple to more complicated projects.   Laying out rarely meant the sole act of planning on paper.  

[Sean Leary]

David M,

Are you sure that those 3 articles make it a fact? It might be true and I agree that it looks like those are the only contemporary "proof" but it seems like calling it a "fact' seems too strong to me. Just my opinion.

[Kevin Lynch]

Kevin,

Would you like ketchup with those worms?

To all with vested interest in Tilly/Burbeck:

My above comment was not meant to "tweek" anyone in any way.  I remember reading Whitten's articles on the issue awhile back and vaguely remembered a reference in a book I read where Roger Maltbie dismissed the notion, but I haven't had a strong opinion either way.  

Now that I've pulled the book from my library, I realize that was an excerpt in "Golf's Finest Hour" written by none other than Phillip Young.  I can honestly say I rarely know the background of people here on the site and usually have these moments where I stumble upon their "real life" identities.  

Does anyone have a link to the most "comprehensive" discussion on this topic?  I saw it appear in several threads by doing a quick search, but was hoping for some guidance to the most thorough discussion (I realize asking for the most "productive" thread could be a stretch).  I promise that I'm entering the discussion with an open mind.

[DMoriarty]

David M,

Are you sure that those 3 articles make it a fact? It might be true and I agree that it looks like those are the only contemporary "proof" but it seems like calling it a "fact' seems too strong to me.

Sean.  I don't think I called the ultimate conclusion about who laid out the course a "fact." If I did, I shouldn't have.

I think what I have tried to say is that having three contemporaneous articles telling us who laid out the course is about as good as evidence as one can reasonably expect, especially when at least one of the articles contains a load of detailed and accurate information about the golf course and its creation.   I have also said that, aside from the reference to Bush and Parker, there really isn't anything in the contemporaneous record refuting these articles or even calling them into question.  

When I ask Kevin for his "factual basis" for doubting that Campbell laid out the course, I am asking him for contemporaneous evidence suggesting that it did not happen as the articles state that it did.  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I would agree with you that the term "lay out" or "laid out" were used ambiguously, and certainly confusingly, and that some of these definitions evolved as the art did, which is why I said I would avoid blanket statements as to its usage and meaning at any given point.

I would also like to correct something and perhaps you are also correct that this isn't the place for it.

However, at the time CBM bought the land for NGLA in late 1906/early 1907, he did indeed believe that only 110 acres were needed for the golf course.   He included this information in the Original Agreement Signed by the Founders, and referred to it again in 1912 in a letter to those founders, when he wrote, under the heading "Surplus Land";

You will note in the original subscription it was stated that there would be some acres of land which would not be required for the golf course proper.   This has proved to be true, and this land is at the disposal of the Founders, but you will note in the minutes of the Founders' meeting of December 20th, 1911, that no action was taken in the matter, it being left to the wishes of the Founders, to be expressed at some future time.  

Macdonald wrote, again in 1912;

Some six years ago the idea was formulated of establishing a classic golf course in America, one which would be designed after and eventually compared favorably with the championship linnks abroad and serve as an incentive to the elevation of the game in the United States...There is attached a copy of the original agreement, the spirit of which has been carried out as closely as has been consistent with the object which the Founders had in view.

...The attached copy of the Original Agreement read in part;

With this end in view, it is proposed to buy two hundred or more acres of ground on Long Island, where the soil is best suited for the purpose of laying out a golf course, and which at the same time is most accessible to the larger body of golfers in this country...

...Assuming that we buy 200 acres, it would take about 110 acres to lay out the golf course proper, and five acres for a clubhouse and accessories.   We would give to each subscriber an acre and a half of ground in fee simple.   The ground in itself should be worth $500 an acre in the vicinity of a golf course of this character.  

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba, that Agreement is from 1904 and it generally set out what CBM thought it would take at that time.   It is unreasonable to treat those 1904 statements as if CBM was directly and specifically referring to events that would not happened for a couple of years.  You always neglect to notice that the text you always quote was followed by "This is simply a suggestion. The details can be worked out later."  In fact, they knew they would use more than 110 acres when the bought the property for NGLA.  The course has already been planned before they finally purchased it.

Rather than doing this again here, why not go back and read those other threads?  We've covered this again and again.  

Or better yet, why don't you provide a concise answer to the question I asked Kevin above?

[Jeff_Brauer]

"Sean.  I don't think I called the ultimate conclusion about who laid out the course a "fact." If I did, I shouldn't have."

David,

In the last 10 pages of debate (or so) that is basically what many of us have been waiting to hear.  Your statement above means many of us are closer to understanding each others points of view than the hyperbole might suggest.

We understand your conclusions, we understand most of your reasoning, and we think it has a good chance of being correct, subject to filling in a few interesting details, but don't think for now it can be the "ultimate conclusion" much less fact.  It seems you are saying the same thing, and I understand why and how you come at it from a different way.

Sean may have confused you with TMac, who emphatically called it fact and told us no one disagreed with it.  

[DMoriarty]

Jeff, I have written the same thing repeatedly.

And you can call it anything you want, but is by far the best explanation for what happened based on the contemporaneous source material.   Running second is that Parker and Bush laid out the course.  

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

EXACTLY what do you believe that Campbell did and when? It would be most helpful if you DON'T use the term "laid out" but rather DESCRIBE what it is that he did (e.g. - design as separate from build as separate from route...). I ask becaus I do think that the term "laid out" AS USED BY the ones writing those articles are different from your definition. This is based upon the example from earlier in the thread where the same newspaper columnist referred to a a TENNIS COURT being "laid out" and then in the next paragraph a golf course having been "laid out." It seems quite clear that he was referring to CONSTRUCTION only and not DESIGN.

Again, by this I am not saying that Campbell DIDN'T design the course, but I am saying that I don't believe that you can use the term "laid out" as proof that he did if the ones writing it didn't use it that way specifically.

Kevin, if you'd like a good understanding of the Tillinghast/Burbeck/Bethpage issue, there is a wonderful white paper published on the Tillinghast Association website that discusses it. This was published in June of 2002 in direct response to the GD/Whitten article and was used by both Bethpage and the USGA as an answer at that time. the website address is: www.tillinghast.net.

[DMoriarty]

Phillip,  I've explained to you why I don't think you should let a single article about a tennis course dictate your understanding of what the verb means in relation to golf courses, but to no avail.    

IMO, your understanding is an oversimplification, given that there is little or no design element involved in creating tennis courts.   Like a tennis court, one could lay a golf course out on the ground based upon some preconceived plan.  But unlike with a tennis court, laying out a golf course often involved choosing the routing as one marked off the course on the ground.  Early on it was unusual for there to have been a written plan in place before the course was laid out.

The papers indicate that Campbell "laid out" the course.  Based on how this term was generally used in the mid-1890's, and based on my understanding of what Campbell did at other courses, I take this to mean that he marked off the course on the ground as he saw fit, and that this included what we think of as planning the routing of the course.  

Likewise, if true, the story of AM&G marking off the course with pegs would also constitute "laying out" the course, and include planning the routing as they laid it out.   And if they had already laid out the course back in March (or before) then why would the papers say that no course had been laid out as of mid-May?  Or that Campbell had laid it out?  

To turn Mike's oft repeated question on its head; if they had already marked off the course before mid-March, then why  would they have just let it sit there through mid-May?    Why not finish the job, or have someone finish the job long before the season so it would be ready instead of rough?   If they had already planned it then any laborers could have done the job.  

[Terry Lavin]

This reads like a history book written by the Speculation brothers, Rank and Idle.

[DMoriarty]

Terry,

When it comes to who laid out the course, the article below is far from speculative.  The other details in the article, including the hole names, are correct.   

[Terry Lavin]

Just teasing, David.

Levity and brevity occasionally helps a controversy subside.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Several pages back, I laid out a scenario for Mike that would fit into your theory.  Of course, you seemingly dismissed it as unfounded speculation (probably, but it did fit all the documents).

The short version was that I believed they did enough work, like picking out the appropriate land, given horse set concerns, to submit to the annual meeting where it was approved.  That may have involved walking the property to somehow generally make sure a course fit, and maybe even a rudimentary layout, which may have been partially or totally changed when Willie C got there with his expertise.

The reports only say they made preparations for golf, which involve a lot more than design.  And, I think deciding what land to use, acquiring sheep and sod, etc. may have taken a part time committee all of that 3 months, without having designed the final course at all.  I think we all sometimes underestimate the amount of time it takes, now, then, whatever.  

[Mike Cirba]

Mike Cirba, that Agreement is from 1904 and it generally set out what CBM thought it would take at that time.   It is unreasonable to treat those 1904 statements as if CBM was directly and specifically referring to events that would not happened for a couple of years.  You always neglect to notice that the text you always quote was followed by "This is simply a suggestion. The details can be worked out later."  In fact, they knew they would use more than 110 acres when the bought the property for NGLA.  The course has already been planned before they finally purchased it.

David,

Did Macdonald know for certain in 1904 that his golf course was going to be on Long Island?

George Bahto's book reads;

"In 1904, Macdonald was off again to make a more detailed study of the holes he admired in Europe.   Upon his return, he began a preliminary search for land on which to build his dream course.   It was to take years.   He scoured the East coast of the United States from Maine to Cape May, New Jersey before deciding the best approximation of traditional links land was on New York's Long Island.   While the search continued, his close friend Devereux Emmet spent a winter in the British Isles carefully measuring holes he felt noteworthy for Macdonald."

A September 1905 article in the New York Sun indicated;

"Mr. Macdonald indicated that the course would probably be on Long Island, and as accessible to New York City as possible."


As regards my omission you mentioned earlier, the next paragraphs actually read;

"Further than this it is proposed that each subscriber receive a $1,000 3% debenture bond.   We would issue this so as to identify the holder, and make it a debenture bond so that it would not be a fixed charge.   This debenture bond must be held so long as one is a member of the Founders, and in case of selling, it can only be sold to one who would be elected a member of the Founders."

"This is simply a suggestion.   The details can be worked out later."

"As to the building of the golf course, it is well known that certain holes on certain links abroad are famous as being the best considering their various lengths.   It is the object of this association to model each of the eighteen holes after the most famous ones abroad, so that each hole would be representative and classic in itself."

"Mr. Charles B. Macdonald will take charge of this matter and associate himself with two qualified golfers in America, making a committee of three capable of carrying out this general scheme.   In the meantime, you are asked to subscribe and leave the matter entirely in his hands."

[Kevin Lynch]

David -

You keep asking people for the contemporary proof that AM&G laid out the course - you know that it simply has not been located or presented here.  Fine.

However, I still find it hard to believe that the story of AM&G's involvement just precipitated out of thin air.  Then you consider the pre-Myopia course on the Appleton estate, it's possible these members may have "had a go" at routing, with the idea that Campbell may give some input.  You couple that with some of the "tight timing" questions that Mike raises, along with plausible confusion over usage of the term "laid out" in an early sport, and it's not an extraordinary leap to believe the recollections of Bush / Parker, even without seeing "contemporaneous club records."

However, to be fair, the "Squire & Co did it" story has a similar set of questions which raise doubt (as you've presented).  You've offered your explanation about the "tight timing" and given me things to consider.

And that's all I'm saying - I'm not ready to conclude anything as "fact" (Tom's term, not yours).  But the bigger point, for me, is that I still learned something without having to say I know conclusively what happened.  I've appreciated all the articles and history, and even liked hearing the conjecture on what might have happened from both sides or the extent of Campbell's role.

I'm sorry if that wasn't the conclusion you or Tom were looking for when this topic was being discussed, but I'm satisfied with what I got out of it.

[Mike Cirba]

Kevin,

You ignorant sl*t!   How dare you not accept my interpretive version of incomplete evidence as historical fact?!   


Sorry...I just hadn't insulted anyone here in a very long time and I really felt I was falling behind.   

Just kidding, and trying to follow the Terry Lavin humor approach, which is muuuuuuuuuuuucccccccccchhhhhhhh* needed in these topics! 


* Wardian language

[DMoriarty]

Terry,

I got the joke but nonetheless want it to be clear that, while speculation is rampant, when it comes to who "laid out" the original course only one side is speculating beyond the source material.   TomM and I are going with what was reported after the first tournament; that Willie Campbell laid out the course.  
_______________________________________________

Jeff Brauer,

Whether consistent with my position or not,  more speculation does nothing to advance the discussion at this point.  This is especially so when much of the speculation contains unsupported assumptions or misrepresentations of the record.

- The  "horse concerns" are in all likelihood overplayed.  The stables were on the other side of the property.  The polo field was up by the railroad tracks.   There were no hunts, only drags, and they took place all over the countryside.  

-- The reports say they that Appleton, Merrill, and Burnham (not Gardner) had been appointed to take measures for the introduction of golf this season.  There were no reports that they had already taken measures as you suggest.    I am sure you will write this off as "word parsing" but the tense is key when we are trying to figure out when things happened.  You and Mike keep changing the tenses of these articles as if these expected events already took place.  

- There is no record that any of the three named to the committee were even in Hamilton between the annual meeting (which took place in Boston) and the opening of the summer social season around June 1st.   There are reports of them at the Country Club during this period though, which was where Campbell was as well.

- I am not "underestimating" the amount of time things took back then.  In fact, I am not estimating at all.  There are multiple reports that the course had not been laid out by mid-May, and that conditions were still very rough at the opening.  

- If I were to estimate, it would be presumptuous of me to assume that my own experiences should control.   Rather, I would obviously have to look at how long it usually took between the time these simple, early courses were laid out and the time they were used for play.   Somehow I doubt you have ever done this.    In this regard, I have read various accounts of courses being used for play almost immediately after they were laid out.   Shinnecock is one such course.  

____________________________

Mike Cirba,  I'll not discuss NGLA with you here.   Given that CBM covered the progression toward NGLA in great detail in his book, you should read it if you are curious.

_______________________________

Kevin,

- If there is no contemporaneous support for the belief that AM&G laid out the course, then it is a matter of faith, not reason, and there is nothing really to discuss.

- It was common early on for the club member in charge of these projects to receive credit for the design, especially when the early pro was not the golf pro at the course at the time.    Appleton and Merrill were on the subcommittee charged with bringing golf to Myopia for that season.   Parker and Bush were reportedly the first golf committee.  So it is no surprise to me that these guys have been credited where Campbell apparently should have been.
  
- The problems with the two positions are in no way similar.  One is based upon contemporaneous accounts of what happened.  The other contains errors, has no sources backing it up, and conflicts with the contemporaneous source material.
____________________________________

I am always astounded at how people will substitute their own unsupported ideas of what might have happened for actual reports of what happened.    Surely contemporaneous newspaper accounts containing detailed and accurate information should considered above  unsupported speculation 120 years after the fact.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

So are you still saying that the letter to the NGLA Founders was sent in 1904 and that Long Island had already been identified at that time?    

Why would Macdonald say it was "some six years ago" when he wrote his "Statement of Charles Blair Macdonald" to the Founders again in 1912?   That would put the date to 1906, the year he secured the property.   Do you think he would have sent his prospectus without first securing a site?

That will be my last question on NGLA here if I might.   I just don't find the dates lining up real well.

Thanks for your consideration.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

I am not using a single article as there are other examples of the term being used in the exact same way during those years. I stress the use of that single article because it was written by the GOLF writer who also mentioned the tennis court. It is obvious then as to how he viewed the meaning of the phrase. I am NOT stating that it wasn't used as you have stated, but I believe that you are simplifying the meaning by stating that it can ONLY be used as you state in the case of Myopia. It is you who is limiting its meaning by stating that you take the term as you understand it's "generally used" meaning.

I think that a good case can be made that, at least in this specific instance, the use of the term "laid out" may have been one of course construction rather than design. I believe there is at least enough uncertainty that one simply cannot definitively state that the newspaper articles refer to Campbell planning, routing and designing the course.

Consider this in light of what else you asked:

“Likewise, if true, the story of AM&G marking off the course with pegs would also constitute "laying out" the course, and include planning the routing as they laid it out.   And if they had already laid out the course back in March (or before) then why would the papers say that no course had been laid out as of mid-May?  Or that Campbell had laid it out?”

If the meaning of the term is one of “constructed” then the answer is obvious. But let’s say it is more than merely one of construction and includes the “staking” out of the course. The question follows as to why do it twice if it had been already staked with pegs? The answer for that might very well lay in the severe snow storm that occurred in April. The possibility that the pegs were either moved or gone when the snows melted and the land exposed once again is very real and can’t simply be sloughed off. This would certainly explain then why Campbell would “lay out” the course again.

It also answers your next question:

“To turn Mike's oft repeated question on its head; if they had already marked off the course before mid-March, then why would they have just let it sit there through mid-May?    Why not finish the job, or have someone finish the job long before the season so it would be ready instead of rough?   If they had already planned it then any laborers could have done the job.”

With a large and long-lasting snowfall occurring at the time that Tom Macwood has presented, then no work could have been done.

Based upon all of the above, here then is a theory that I believe is just as credibly possible as any other that has been presented so far.

The “sub-committee” was formed and the three members staked out a course sometime in March. At this time there were no plans for Willie Campbell to come to Myopia, because if there were, there simply is no need to form a new “sub-committee” since the work they would do, if it was simply arranging for Campbell, was already done. No, I believe the fact that one was formed shows that Campbell became an unexpected addition 45+ days later.

The “sub-committee” appointed the three members to create plan and create the course which they did immediately did in March as a result of their own plans made previous to the Board meeting at which they received the official appointment.

They waited until April to begin construction when the weather would be normally better and, fortunately/unfortunately depending on one’s perspective, were unable to do anything before the thaw.

Willie Campbell arrives to much acclaim and so they hire his services to build the course based upon their own routing/design/staking out from March. Due to the severity of the snowfall, the staking out needed to be re-done and because he was able to follow what was originally done by the members, it was done very quickly and with minimal, if any, changes.

The above addresses every single issue and question raised and allows for the different permutations of the seemingly contradictory writings, reports, newspaper articles and memories to reach agreement.

It is a THEORY only, but until access is granted to the actual board minutes and historical documents at the club, NO ONE can reach a conclusion, including mine, that reflects what ACTUALLY happened…


  

[Mike Cirba]

Everyone in this recent discussion seems to be forgetting that S. Dacre Bush tells us that the greens were SODDED.

That isn't a plug and play deal, no pun intended.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

I'm sorry, but I simply can't accept your statement "If there is no contemporaneous support for the belief that AM&G laid out the course, then it is a matter of faith, not reason, and there is nothing really to discuss." to be anything other than a similar "matter of faith and not reason."

If you simply add the phrase "THAT I AM AWARE OF" then it becomes acceptable. Have you gone through EVERY newspaper and magazine published in the region during the time period? If not, then how can you make that statement? I don't have any problem with you stating that you don't BELIEVE that there are board minutes/documents/records at Myopia that tell what actually happened; I have a rather large problem with you stating that this is FACT which is what your statement clearly does, because if they do have them, they are the most contemporaneous of all, wouldn't you say?

You have presented a great deal of good information and "facts" for consideration; but they are for consideration only and come no where close to being definitive. There simply are too many questions that can't be answered, reasonable explanations for them all and that big elephant in the room, club records and documents that no one has had access to that you deem trustworthy or believable for your own theoretical conclusion to be considered as the factual answer.

[Mike Cirba]

Here again is what Weeks (and S. Dacre Bush) wrote; (bolding for emphasis mine)

"Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be made ready for play in three months, and the speed at which their recommendation was followed is evident in this terse entry in the Club records by Secretary S. Dacre Bush:"

"At a meeting of the Executive Committee about March 1894 it was decided to build a golf links on the Myopia grounds.   Accordingly the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut, and play began about June 1st, 1894."