Willie Campbell & Myopia

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

Why don't you do everyone a favor here and just drop out of this Myopia thread and try to let me and Tom MacWood and anyone else who is actually interested in this subject and not in your constant insulting of me have a conversation about the differences between the original nine and the Leeds 1898 Long Nine?

As for your constant insulting of me, I might consider it or consider worrying about it if it was actually from someone with a modicum of consequence.

[DMoriarty]

TomM

What of the Campbell's long nine was used when the course was expanded to 18?

[TEPaul]

Tom:

What do you make of those very different hole yardages in the news accounts in your post #320?   

[TEPaul]

"TomM

What of the Campbell's long nine was used when the course was expanded to 18?"


Tom:

Yeah, why don't you answer that question in detail hole by hole? At least I didn't ask you the question so this time I guess I'm not going to be accused of trying to lord over you how much I know, Huh?  

[DMoriarty]

"TomM

What of the Campbell's long nine was used when the course was expanded to 18?"


Tom:

Yeah, why don't you answer that question in detail hole by hole? At least I didn't ask you the question so this time I guess I'm not going to be accused of trying to lord over you how much I know, Huh?  

You mean until this post, that is. 

[Tom MacWood]

TomM

What of the Campbell's long nine was used when the course was expanded to 18?

The old 4th or old Alps hole was the only hole that is not part of the expanded 18, although it appears the green is the green for the present 11th.

[DMoriarty]

TomM

What of the Campbell's long nine was used when the course was expanded to 18?

The old 4th or old Alps hole was the only hole that is not part of the expanded 18, although it appears the green was used with the present 11th.

Interesting about the hole called the Alps hole, because there was a hole called the Alps hole at Myopia about a decade later, wasn't there?

[Tom MacWood]

Yes, you can see the old Alps on the map. The present Alps has the same tee but is a par-4 and it moves 90 degrees into the corner of the property below SD Bushes rented property.

[DMoriarty]

Yes, you can see the old Alps on the map. The present Alps has the same tee but is a par-4 and it moves 90 degrees into the corner of the property below SD Bushes rented property.

But didn't the Alps hole come into existence sometime around 1910 or there about?

ADDED:  My mistake.  A fronting bunker was added in 1909, but the hole was otherwise as it was.

[Tom MacWood]

Here is the map of the course in 1902. The current Alps is the 10th hole.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

Since you've never seen it I should tell you for your edificatiuon that map of the 1902 course is pretty much the way the course is today with the exception of the 13th green and the 16th hole.

Hope that helps

[TEPaul]

The original Myopia Alps (#4) was called that because of a prominent natural feature. The second iteration Myopia Alps (#10) was called that because of another prominent natural feature (that was eventually removed).

[DMoriarty]

TomM,

It sure looks as if the bulk of Campbell's original course was kept when the course was expanded to 18 holes.  With the 4th it looks like they used the tee for one new hole and the green for the next new hole, but the approach on the second of these must have have resembled the second shot on the original if one chose to play around the Alps feature instead of over it. 

Thanks for the comparison of the yardages and the maps.  Together they ought to settle any reasonable debate about Campbell's contributions. 

[TEPaul]

Tom:

Why have you assumed that the course listed as the 1896 nine (or the 1898 nine) in those newspaper accounts was the original 1894 nine?



"Perhaps TEP can explain exactly when the long nine was designed and by whom."


The "Long Nine" was designed by Herbert C. Leeds between 1896 and 1898. Between 1898 and 1901 Herbert Leeds designed nine more holes bringing the course to eighteen holes.
 

[Tom MacWood]

Here is another interesting old thread where substantive information trumped uninformed bluster.

[TEPaul]

"Here is another interesting old thread where substantive information trumped uninformed bluster."


So now we seem to be getting a glimmer of why Tom MacWood is suddenly beginning to reprise all these old threads.  

On this particular thread and subject a slightly informed observer might agree with the remark quoted above if they were only aware of what Tom MacWood found and knows about Myopia----eg a couple of old 1894 Boston Globe articles that mention Willie Campbell laid out Myopia in 1894.

Unfortunately, Tom MacWood has never seen the information within the club's archives which contradicts those 1894 articles as well as what-all happened later because just like Merion and Pine Valley, Tom MacWood has never even been to Myopia and consequently has never had any access to the all important information within the club itself. If anyone is going to do this stuff well and comprehensively they pretty much have to personally look at and consider all research information on these clubs and subjects and unfortunately that requires actually going to them. It is almost never even close to good enough to just consider a small part of it all as the researcher from Ohio does on most of these courses, clubs and subjects.

[Tom MacWood]

TE
This thread covered ten pages. A good amount of documentation was presented over those ten pages, and none of it came from you. Your fall back position when the information mounts against you - 'I know these people, and I've had access to their material, and so-and-so has does not, therefore lets ignore his documentation' - is growing old. If you have info to present, present it, if not, admit it and move on.

[TEPaul]

"TE is an idiot savant. On the one hand he clearly suffers from a lack of substantive historical information (and has no the ability to independently gather substantive historical information), but on the other hand he is one of the world's foremost experts on golf architecture history."



What's the matter, Tom MacWood, are you starting to get desperate now?

I guess I can at least understand if you are seeing as how many times as your information and opinions  on here have been proven wrong by those you seem to insist on compete with on what you consider research.

With the architects and courses I've concentrated on which certainly include Merion, Pine Valley and Myopia I have probably conservatively ten times more research information on them right here in my office and on my computer than you ever have or ever will with the way you go about it.

It's just that I can't post information on this website and even if a could I would not post unpublished information on here without the direct permission of the clubs. Consequently I just talk about the information I have rather than posting it. If anyone feels some burning need to check on my accuracy or bona fides of what I have and what I know they are perfectly free to approach these clubs about it as I always have.

You have no such concerns or constraints apparently. To me that just boils down to a matter of a real lack of good old fashioned commonsense and ethics, and personally I think yours totally stinks on both counts. If you don't want to hear this from me on this DG or otherwise or if you don't want to believe me then just start by calling up that New Jersey township manager you conned information out of and let him explain it to you or for you. Or you could always just go there and talk to him face to face but if you decided to do that I'd advise you to bring a lawyer with you because that guy told us both if you ever showed up there he would personally sue you for a complete failure to properly represent yourself and what you were after.

Frankly the way you go about it on here and apparently elsewhere unfortunately has the potential to give numerous others who are beginning to do some good and deep research and analysis a bad name and doubly unfortunate is it involves some of the most significant clubs and courses in America and probably elsewhere as well.

[TEPaul]

"TE
This thread covered ten pages. A good amount of documentation was presented over those ten pages, and none of it came from you. Your fall back position when the information mounts against you - 'I know these people, and I've had access to their material, and so-and-so has does not, therefore lets ignore his documentation' - is growing old. If you have info to present, present it, if not, admit it and move on."



Tom MacWood:

We've heard that same litany from you on here before---a lot actually.

Apparently you must think that nothing actually qualifies as documentary information unless and until a copy of it is posted on this website.

I don't look at it that way for a number of reasons. First, it's completely illogical to say something like that. Information and analysis is just what it is and if someone wants to check out the bona fides of documentary information at a club that's never been published then they pretty much need to go there to see it for themselves, don't you think? Is there anything about that concept you don't understand or agree with?  

Again, I don't post copies of documentary material on this website. I never have and I don't even know how to do it. But for those who know me and have worked with me or been here where I work know fairly well what I have here on some of these significant courses such as the ones mentioned that has never been published or been made part of a public website like this one.

When I work with these clubs I let them make that call. You don't actually work with any clubs or memberships I'm aware of so you obviously don't have to deal with these realities. I respect them so that's the way I've always done it and I encourage others to do the same. In the end it pretty much serves to make this interest of our more accessible by more people. If they share things with me I respect their processes regarding information. You don't do that at least you most certainly haven't in the slightest with the likes of Merion, Pine Valley and Myopia, and as you know I think that stinks and I always have thought it stinks.

[TEPaul]

But now that this thread has been reprised by MacWood for some reason I see looking at the last few posts from before it is reprised that there may be some pretty general confusion or lack of understanding about what the original 1894 nine was compared to the long nine and then the long nine compared to the entire 18 holes as Leeds developed the latter two, and that would include confusion and lack of understanding on MacWood's part despite the fact he seems to think for some odd reason he was the one who provided most of the information on this thread or who can.  

It's more than a little complicated about what exactly made up that original 1894 nine and perhaps still even on the part of the club's understanding of that original nine, even though they now have a member who is doing some great work on the architectural evolution of the course that includes some good research after Leeds, and long after Leeds.

Like a lot of these great old course's and architecture with this kind of membership it went into an era I tend to call their "sleepy period."

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
If you have information to present - be it drawings, notes, articles, excerpts from minutes, or whatever - then please present it. If not, stop pretending you have information and pretending you have some special insight into the evolution of Myopia. We can see through your self-important BS.

[TEPaul]

That might be your opinion but it's not mine and it's not Myopia's and their opinion of their architectural history is what really matters, and certainly not your opinion of their architectural history.

I doubt they even know who you are or care. And that's what most clubs feel about people like you who do about less than half the research and analysis of any architectural subject without even bothering to go to the subject or even talking to them about it. I don't believe any of these clubs, be they Pine Valley, Merion, North Shore or Myopia, see any need to present their unpublished club material to you or anyone else on this website unless and until some of those people establish a relationship with those clubs. Others certainly have but you never have.

Perhaps their opinions might change on that if anyone on here produced some credible information that might change their interpretation of their architectural history and then presented it to the club but that hasn't happened with you or anyone else on the website. They are now aware of those Boston Globe articles about Campbell in 1894 but they are also aware of their club administrative records of 1894.

I doubt you even understand the seeming differences between that original 1894 nine and Leeds' first efforts called the "Long Nine." I asked you to explain that on this thread before but you conveniently ignored it. I wonder why?

There's even a semi-mistake in the club's history book on that distinction between the first nine hole course and the next nine hole course but I doubt you've figured out what that is or ever could without going there first and examing the material and the land itself.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I'd be curious to know why you reprised this thread the other day after six months other than to mention something about uninformed bluster. What is that, by the way? Is it the fact you claim you know something about the architectural history of the course without ever having seen Myopia? Or are you perhaps wanting and willing to learn something this time?

But now that it's back and since your Schtick with Myopia is that Willie Campbell designed the original nine hole course in 1894 (contrary to what the club's administrative records show), perhaps you could tell us all what the hole by hole sequence of that original nine hole course was and where all the holes were.

I'll be back on Monday and check in to see how you did and what we all learned from you about that original Willie Campbell 1894 Myopia nine.  

Thanks

[Tom MacWood]

TE
I bumped this thread because some confused idiot wrote this the other day:

"And Leeds didn't even have Willie Campbell to help him or do it for him either as one misguided contributor on here seemed to think. Part of that had to do with the fact that when Leeds really got rolling on the architecture of Myopia Willie Campbell WAS DEAD!"

[TEPaul]

I don't think that is info from any confused idiot depending on what one defines as Leeds really getting rolling with Myopia in 1900 when Willie Campbell died!  

Is it possible for you to write a single post on this website about something I'm involved in without putting one or both your feet squarely in your mouth?

But more importantly try to deal with the real gist of my last post:

"But now that it's back and since your Schtick with Myopia is that Willie Campbell designed the original nine hole course in 1894 (contrary to what the club's administrative records show), perhaps you could tell us all what the hole by hole sequence of that original nine hole course was and where all the holes were."

Can you answer that comprehensively or will you just avoid it as you so often do with important points so as not to prove to every one on here what you don't know?