Willie Campbell & Myopia

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I measured the Hopkins property in CAD and it comes out to 44-46 acres, depending on where I draw the line. It also requires that I used some supposedly known hole yardages to scale the drawing, so it might be a little off.  All in all, given the methods, it doesn't seem too unlikely that it was as recorded by whatever documents existed.  I didn't measure the other side of the property because I didn't really know which area you were considering.

I see your point in the Weeks description of the original nine, and the only way those holes could be right (forgetting the names) is if the current 12th was shorter, and the then sixth played over the pond towards 12 green, and then the course ventured over to the edges of Hopkins property.  Even that might require crossing fw, which are not out of the question in those days.  I spent a little time looking at routings that fit the Weeks description of the holes, and am not sure I came up with any good ones.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Why do you think my proposed routing is off?

As I just showed, the original 1st hole known as Kennels is todays 2nd hole, and the last four are pretty obvious.

Thoughts?

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

Like I said, I don't know how long the holes were originally, and neither do you.   Only one of us is pretending to know.

_______________________________________________

Jeff Brauer.

Can you show me the borders you used for that measurement?   I can't come up with anything close to that. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Check your email.  Yes, I know I violated your “don’t contact me rule” but since you asked…….

Mike,

Your fourth hole goes over a pretty substantial ridge.  They already had the Alps later.  While its possible, I am not sure about that hole and how it fits the topo.

I think the key to this might be to look again at hole names....

Perhaps the third, or shooting box, which would logically be located in the brush, aiming out to the open meadow.

Not sure where a track would be or was.  A Horse Track?  Certainly not an early track and field for the school?

Perhaps the key to the deal is to find out where the old schoolhouse was?  Out west, I know they were placed on top of tall hills, and the ridge between current 5 and 7 is quite tall, and we know the next hole is the current ninth, sans pond.  If it was located along Miles River Road, it could also be possible, as other holes seem like they are close to, but not necessarily right on the features they were named for.

It is also possible that something like the current sixth was called "Bullrush" and existing 7 was the original 7th, as well.

It may be futile to try to figure out the first routing, but it sure is fun.

[Jeff_Brauer]

BTW,

I did locate a USGS map supposedly first mapped in 1893. It shows one structure across Miles River Road just north of the Bush Tract at the current corner of Miles River and Reihhalter Lane and the site appears to still be a public park.  No other strucutures are shown on the big hill.  I have no idea if this one dot on the map was the schoolhouse or not.  

I also note that there was a railroad track that came closest to the golf course about where the 4th green sits now.  In current aerial photos, you can also see remants of it at the north end of the range. The former branch line connected at Hamilton to the west, and crossed the Miles River just west of Miles River Road, and there was a small station there.  Perhaps this gave the railroad the same type of prominence/history as the old schoolhouse did?

I would be going out on a limb but these names would suggest that

1 was current 2 (green near kennels)
2 was current 3 (green near Miles River)
3 was current 4 (Tee or other feature) near a former shooting box in brush by river)
4 was the current 5 (tee by the railroad track)
5 was current 6 (tee by the old school house on Mile River Road)
6 was current 9 (without the formal pond) and same as 6 on Long Nine
7 was same as 7 on Long Nine (current 10 tee to 11 green)
8 was same as 8 on Long Nine, and 12 today
9 was same as 9 on Long Nine, and 13 today

There are obviously a few other configurations that also make sense based on the hole names.

However, if this is anything close to right, Leeds in fact used nearly all of Willie (or Appleton's holes) in the final 18 after having been abandoned on the long nine, or at least versions, thereof.  And, if correct, then David had it almost exactly right back on his post on page 13.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,  I looked a bit into the names back before my suggestion of the holes.  I  believe the RR station for Hamilton/Wenham was on Miles River Road across the river, to the north of the current fourth green and fifth green.  

As for school, there was (and is) a school on top of he large hill across Miles River Road from the current 6th tee.  For a long time it was a "junior seminary"  and it goes way back, but I haven't figured out whether it goes back all the way to 1894.    Given that the club obviously had horses,  "school" could also refer to that portion of the property where the young horses were kept and trained.   Shooting box could refer to one of a few things:  a shed or outbuilding where firearms, powder, hunting supplies were stored; a cabin used for hunting; or a permanent blind or structure used for shooting.   Were I to build the last of these, it would be somewhere along the river.  

As for your measure, I don't think that the drawing on page 43 is too scale.   I know it has a scale, but I have tried to superimpose it over aerials, and it doesn't  match up on the west side of the property.   If you look at the google aerial, you can see a number of the boundaries and landmarks shown on that map, including the jutting corner of the rock wall near the 4th green and 5th tee, as well as the road/trail to the left of the sixth.    Using these landmarks, the land is not anywhere near 40 acres, much less 51.

You would have a lot better luck getting others to accept your routing if you left out the part about it being the one I came up with 38 pages ago.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Why do you accept Weeks' contention that golf was played on Dr. Hopkins land?   What "source" are you using, and what corresponding information is there to verify this that you feel comfortable with?

[DMoriarty]

David,

Why do you accept Weeks' contention that golf was played on Dr. Hopkins land?   What "source" are you using, and what corresponding information is there to verify this that you feel comfortable with?

Huh?  I don't even accept the contention that land to the north east of the clubhouse was Hopkins' land.  It may've been, but I've never seen anything indicating that it was, other than Weeks unsupported claim.   If it wasn't Hopkins land, then they weren't playing on Hopkins land, were they?  

Your question makes so little sense that I have to wonder about its origins.  Just so you know, I am not interested in discussing this with your sleazy mentor, whether through you or not.  So please don't act as his conduit here.   Not saying you have been, but please don't. 

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I'm speaking for myself and if Tom Paul ever wants to engage with you again I'm sure he doesn't need me.

[DMoriarty]

Good, but he needn't bother, because I want nothing to do with him.

Your question made no sense whatsoever.   

[Mike Cirba]

David,

If the only source you'll avail yourself to is newspaper articles and gossip columns and refuse to acknowledge that both Weeks and May used internal club records and deeds then I would agree that further discussion is a pointless waste of time.

[DMoriarty]

David,

If the only source you'll avail yourself to is newspaper articles and gossip columns and refuse to acknowledge that both Weeks and May used internal club records and deeds then I would agree that further discussion is a pointless waste of time.

Mike,  You really should give some thought to how historical research and analysis works.   If May and/or Weeks had the sources you claim they had, then they should have provided those specific references.   In fact, Weeks does source most of what is in his book, enough so that it raises questions about the source for the rest.   This song and dance you guys pull about how if they had access to the club then everything they write must be accurate is absolute nonsense, and has been proven to be a faulty process repeatedly.  Yet about all you guys have to offer this conversation is this mantra that if Weeks (or now May) said it, it must be true.  That is joke at this point, but not a funny one.  

You don't know how long the original course was.  I don't either.  There is no crime in that, either way.  But for you to grasp onto some claim made 70+ years later as if you were there to measure the course yourself?  That is bush league.  

___________________________________________________________________________

Jeff Brauer,

I forgot to mention another slight confusion by Weeks concerning the purchase.  To read Weeks, it appears as if Leeds proposed the purchase and expansion of the course after the 1898 open was played there.  But reportedly, they had already bought the property in 1897 and had laid out the course before the open took place.  A minor detail, but not the kind of detail that Weeks would have gotten wrong were he relying on the type of records you guys assume he must have been relying on.  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I'm sorry, but I don't believe John May would have written 2025 yards without an internal source he felt was valid.

Nor would he and/or Weeks have just separately conjured the story of Appleton and co. Out of pixie dust.

Whatever their source(s), it's not something either of us have seen, but to not acknowledge they each believed they had definitive information when they respectively wrote their accounts seems a bit queer.

I do think it is funny that you are now taking it upon yourself to determine what is and isn't historical research and analysis.  Good luck with that.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method


For some general info on the historic research methods, here is one source.  I am sure we could all thump our chests or chastise others for their methods based on this.  From my perspective, none of us are qualified historians, free from bias, perfect in method, yada, yada, yada.

Short version: It still depends on the skill of the researcher more than anything!

David,

Weeks text Re: the Hopkins land might be confusing.  The map on pg. 43 does say 51 acres was purchased in 1897, though.

When I have time, I will triple check the measurements against Google.  That bar scale appears to have blocks of 50 yards - unusual except on some golf scorecards.  All in all, I have no trouble presuming that the map in Weeks (although redrawn for the book) came from some records.  While I can understand that there might be some reason he left out Willie Campbell from his book that we don't know or understand, I doubt that every single representation in that book requires skepticism and double checking.

Note: Edited to post the correct link.

[DMoriarty]

Mike, I am not taking it upon myself to define or determine competent historical analysis.  Rather I am simply communicating to you some of the most basic tenants, without which historical analysis necessarily fails.

Surely Weeks and May had reasons for writing what they wrote.  So what?  That only begs the question:  What were the reasons? Upon what sources did they rely?  Are these sources trustworthy? Are they consistent with what else is out there? Etc.  You don't ask those questions about what May  or Weeks wrote, because you agree with it and want it to be true.  That is shoddy methodology, and the same methodology that has made you look foolish on so many of these issues.

You don't know how long the original course was.  Your refusal to acknowledge this is telling.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

To be fair, basically those same questions could be asked of those newspaper articles.  Since three read as one, and seem to come from the same source within the club, is it not fair to dig to see where that source was?

The critique of the newspaper articles could go like this:

What were the reasons? - Meet Deadline? Report on high society? Include a famous name to get more readers?

Upon what sources did they rely? - Who in the club gave them that information?  Was he an insider, a press agent, etc.

 Are these sources trustworthy? - See above

Are they consistent with what else is out there? - Why do they contradict club records/history, and vice versa?

A primary source may be one closer in time period or closer to actual events.  I am not sure we can accpet the newspapers as a sole source and not Bush, etc. even if he wrote later, at least according to Wiki.

Not saying either is right or wrong.  I sure see both points.  But, the core principle is to seek out all documents, and that clearly hasn't been done yet, for reasons noted.  Thus, is it fair for any of us to draw a conclusion?

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

"To be fair," the two have nothing to do with each other.

If you want to look something up on Wikipedia perhaps you should try critical thinking, or some such concept that might help you two to analyze the various sources of information.  Perhaps then we could get away from this tit-for-tat illogic where you try to justify your interpretations by comparing them to some reasoning of mine, whether the two are comparable or not.  

For example, you again come at me with this inapt comparison between the newspaper articles and Weeks/May.  There are solid reasons to think that the information in those newspaper articles came from someone who was involved and/or knew what they were talking about.   As for Bush, as I have explained some if it seems credible, other parts don't, yet whether it is credible or not, NOTHING WE'VE SEEN FROM BUSH COMES CLOSE TO ESTABLISHING THAT AM&G LAID OUT THE COURSE.  

[Mike Cirba]

Cmon David...get real.

You haven't the slightest idea who the "source" of thse gossip column articles is, and they were so mistake ridden and wholly ignorant of the nascent game that I've pointed out time and again their errors in place, meaning, contxt, and content to the point of absurdity.

While we don't know the contnets of the Weeks and May articles, at least we know their sources, which is a damn sight better than anonymous articles talking about two links at Myopia, and opening day tourney at Myopia being held at Essex CC in Manchester, HC Leeds only starting to play the game in spring 1894, and an empty pastureland with no course planned on May 19th scheduled to open for golf in just another week or two once the sheep are done eating.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  Posts like that show that you just playing games and that you will say anything if you think it helps you rhetorically.  

One doesn't get much better evidence than an article written at the time of the opening and containing not only a statement of who laid out the course, but also a host of detailed and accurate information about the course and what else was ongoing.  For example, you and everyone else has accepted that the hole names are accurate, yet you think the part about Campbell laying out the course is fiction?  All you are doing is cherry picking out what you like, and dismissing all the rest as unreliable.  

In short, you are extremely disingenuous in the way you deal with the source material.  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

My major concern with those articles and why I don't think they are in any way conclusive (besides the obvious factual and contextual errors) is simply the amount of overlapping reporting between Myopia and Essex, where we KNOW Campbell went in June and where we KNOW he laid out a course at that time.

Throw in multiple references to "two links" in multiple papers, which I think is the writers' confused understanding of the nature of those separate clubs and I think one looking at this objectively has to have reasonable doubt in spades!

Even the article you cite as dis-positive confusingly brings Essex into the mix.

[Mike Cirba]

As to John P. May's sources, and what he wrote, I think it should be reiterated at this point;

In the Acknowledgments Section of the 1974 Golf Digest book titled "Great Golf Courses Of The World",  it is written;


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

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

MEXICO
- and so on....


And, as Phil Young pointed out later, Stoddard served as one of "Masters of the Green" at the club, which essentially equivalent to the Golf Club president, and also was a superb player who once shot 66 at Essex.

And what specifically did May write about the original golf course at Myopia?


MYOPIA HUNT CLUB

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

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
The only time you have a concern for articles are when they don't match your preconceived notion of the facts. You have presented as many or more articles on this site as anyone. And to my knowledge you have never had direct access to any club records. But despite that you are now parroting the research averse TEP, and advocating his stance comes across as completely hypocritical IMO. And by the way TEP's idea of researching internal club records is picking up a recent club history, and we know how reliable those books can be.

Personally I think it is a complete waste of time engaging you on these historical issues. When you don't like a particular fact legitimate contemporaneous reports become 'gossip columns', well respected professionals become 'itinerants', mentioned in the same breath with poor Tom Dunn, and excellent research sources like Ancestry.com are projected as error prone and completely unreliable. Is your background in politics because you sure have mud slinging and smear tactics down pat?

Because you now see these historical issues through the prism of Merion you are now a biased historical advocate for the status quo instead of an objective analyst searching for the truth.

 

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

I have no issue with newspaper articles, but they are fallible and have been shown to be so.

As mentioned in others posts, I've seen news articles that claimed Fred Pickering laid out Merion, and that William Flynn designed Cobbs Creek, and we've all seen a host of other errors.

However, most times they do report accurately, even if many articles contain minor errors.

This case is a little different, however, Tom, and I think you'd have to acknowledge that.

The reporting of the nascent game in Boston meant that not only were the golfers of that city just learning the game, but the writers of what you have to concede were High Society gossip columns also were learning the game and what it meant.   We therefore have lots of very strange writing about things like "two links", and lot of errors.

You can't deny that.

So, I think it's very reasonable to say that although news articles themselves are evidence, one must consider their veracity and source.   In these cases, we don't know the source, and the writers themselves are anonymous.   Golf is an afterthought to them, and not their primary focus.   They clearly know little about the game and it's reflected in their writing.

So, if what is reported in one of these columns conflicts with what has been reported from internal club sources, then I think we have to view each through the prism of what may be flaws in each.   I would grant you that not every club history is flawless, and they are sometimes maddeningly incomplete.

That being said, you can't replace one flawed system with another and then say you've solved the puzzle.   You haven't.

Unless we can examine ALL the evidence, and consider all their sources intelligently, we are playing with half a deck and this discussion really becomes pointless.

And...if you don't consider and acknowledge that you have your own very real biases as well, I think you are only kidding yourself, Tom.

I will say that I enjoy the fact that you bring information forward...for all of our disagreements I think we at least share a passion for historical research of golf courses, and I thank you for your continued efforts in that regard.

[Tom MacWood]

If you see mention of Appleton or Merrill in a society column it is a legitimate report that you extrude in a million different directions. If you see mention of Campbell laying out Myopia it is a gossip column about an itinerant professional.

Because of you emotional attachment to the Wilson legend at Merion you are now an advocate for the status quo, pure and simple. So when you are not directly disparaging some historical figure threatening the status quo you are throwing out loaded language in a subtle (actually not so subtle) way of disparaging and discrediting.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

That really is an unfair assessment.

In the case of Wilson, Joe Bausch found a lot of information that really changed the cast of characters involved at Cobbs Creek and we've embraced it as it tells a richer detailed story.  

In the case of other courses like Philmont (supposedly William Flynn) we've worked to make it clear that evidence instead points to Willie Park, and at Ashbourne (formerly thought to be a J. Franklin Meehan course) was also found to be Willie Park, so please don't tell me that I'm just for the status quo because it's not true.

In the case of Merion, I think the essay and subsequent world war had the benefit of perhaps better explaining the role of CBM and HJ Whigham in the development of that course, but I resist this idea that Wilson wasn't one of the planners of the original course when the evidence indicates he clearly was.   Beyond that, as the man in charge, common sense would dictate that he was the decision maker and should get the credit, no matter who he chose to help advise him.