Willie Campbell & Myopia

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Since you continuously either refuse or neglect to answer questions to you about the original 1894 nine hole course of Myopia I suppose that means you know nothing about it. Do you deny that? If not that would be pretty revealing about you on here since you've maintained Willie Campbell designed the course and not those three members mentioned in the club's administration record which of course you've never seen.

[DMoriarty]

Pulling this up so we don't have to cover all this ground again and so the Tweedie thread isn't taken further off topic.

To recap, Willie Campbell was reported to have designed the original 9 at Myopia in 1894.    Specifically, on June 19, 1894, the Boston Journal reported:

It has been but a few days since the new links at Myopia were laid out by but the professional Campbell, but so keen are the members of the club that the first open handicap match took place yesterday.  It was an unqualified success and it is but the fore runner of many to come. 

On that same date, the Boston Daily Advertiser also reported that Willie Campbell had laid out the Myopia links. 

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I don't think the point of the discussion on the other thread is whether or not Campbell had any involvement at Myopia or not, but whether HJ Tweedie's architecture was something that advanced the art in this country in terms of quality as opposed to quantity, and how by contrast someone like Leeds did work in the same timeframe that clearly did.

[DMoriarty]

My point, Mike, is that at early Myopia what you refer to as "Leed's work" was not necessarily or exclusively "Leed's work."   Reportedly Willie Campbell laid out the original nine.   As for the "long nine" I've never seen anything indicating that it was significantly different from original nine (at least nothing verifiable.)   The only comparison I recall was MacWood's, and according to his comparison all but one hole of the Campbell routing still exist in the present course.

It seems to me that you are utilizing a double standard.  In the past you have dismissed  the work by the Scottish professionals as inferior and as a blight on the medium, yet Myopia was reportedly laid out by one of these Scottish professionals.  And according to you, cross bunkering, cops, and geometric features have always reaked of unworthy dark ages architecture, yet at Myopia these same types of features represent a profound advancement in golf design?    You need to make up your mind Mike.  

As for what you perceive as Leed's advanced use of diagonals, again, I am not certain that this was Leed's doing.   Some of these features were rock pile fences, were they not?     Didn't those predate the course?  If so, then the original routing (reportedly Campbell) set their position.   And only a few of the cross hazards are diagonal.  

Have you compared the use of cross  hazards at Myopia to a relevant sample of courses from the same time period, or are you just relying on the single Atlantic City map?   If you have not done such a comparison, then what is the basis for your conclusion?  

Surely Myopia is a great course and was very important to golf course design.  But when studying it we ought not change our standards based upon who is credited with its creation.

Two photos of Myopia from 1898, then two from 1901:

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Thanks for the terrific pictures.

Whether or not the original nine holes were laid out by the three members or by Campbell is still not relevant to the point I think you're making which is that Leeds did not route the entire course by himself, but instead added nine holes and revised others.   That's a given.   Personally, I think that the members likely routed the course in the spring and then had it built/enhanced for them by Campbell after his arrival here but that's a subtle view that doesn't sit well with the dogmatic archie attribution religious wars that take place on this site too frequently.  

But, it is/was generally acknowledged that the course was made excellent, and very early on, by Herbert Leeds, as I illustrated with the 1906 articles posted on the Tweedie thread.   That's why I'm trying to draw out more info on the Tweedie thread...I'm trying to understand how he differed in terms of quality from the other professionals of the time.

Lots of pros back then were involved in building lots of courses.   Most of them were not very good.

As regards the map of ACCC I posted previously, I don't know if that is representative of Tweedie's work or not and stated that honestly upfront.   At the time I posted it, I asked if others could scan course drawings from the "Golfer's Green Book", I believe it's called, which has a listing of Chicago courses of that time with relevant information for comparison purposes.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything yet in that regard and may try to see what I can pull down from the USGA website.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Are you taking into account that Willie Campbell designed the original nine at Myopia and that Leeds spent a couple decades perfecting the course (during a period of great advancement in golf architecture)?

Do you think the early versions of Kebo Valley and Palmetto are indicative of Leeds architectural abilities? How did they compare with perfected versions of Myopia and Garden City?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Please see my answer above, which I believe I was typing as you posted.

As regards Leeds' other courses, I wouldn't expect either of them to have the degree of sophistication that Myopia has simply because he didn't spend as much time refining them as he did his home course, much like Hugh Wilson at Merion East in comparison to his other courses, or even Macdonald's ongoing refinements of NGLA over his lifetime.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Are you saying the changes that Leeds made over a period two decades are not relevant? If so why not? Are the changes Travis made to GCGC relevant? You do not appear to have any historical perspective when it comes to golf architecture.

Do you think the early versions of Kebo Valley and Palmetto are indicative of Leeds architectural abilities? How did they compare with perfected versions of Myopia and Garden City?

[TEPaul]

From the HJ Tweedie thread:

"Since the beginning of golf at Myopia Hunt club in 1894 the club has essentially had three golf course iterations:

1. The original 1894 nine.
2. The so-called "Long Nine" that was begun in 1896 and used for the 1898 US Open.
3. The eighteen hole course begun in 1898-99 (shown in that plan above) that was used for the 1901, 1906 and 1908 US Opens and happens to be remarkably similar to the course as it exists today.

There are no real unanswered architectural questions today about the "Long Nine" or the eighteen hole course shown above but there are a few about some of the holes of the original 1894 nine hole course."



It is certainly true that there are at least two newspaper accounts from 1894 that mention Willie Campbell laid out Myopia's original 1894 but they are not the only documentation of the laying out of the original nine at Myopia. Three members laid out the original nine in the spring of 1894 according to the club board's records of the time it was laid out. Some on here might claim the board members of Myopia would sit at a meeting of the club's board and lie to one another about what the club was doing with its first golf course and who was doing it, and then submit that record to the Run Book but I seriously doubt they would do that or have any reason to do it. Campbell may not have even arrived in America at that time. It's certainly not to say he didn't help Myopia in some way with their original nine holes when he first got to Boston from Scotalnd but he did not lay them out (route them) originally.

There is no drawing of that original 1894 nine that I'm aware of. What it was and where it was has been partially described somewhat conjecturally in the club's history book (Edward Weeks, 1975) but at least three of the of the holes are unaccounted for (although I believe I know at least where they were) and the others cover some of the same ground as Leed's 1896 "Long Nine."

Leeds was not a member of Myopia in 1894 (he belonged to Brookline). Leeds did win the first two tournaments at Myopia in 1894 though.  He came to Myopia in 1896 and was the one primarily responsible for the "Long Nine" and then the full eighteen hole course that was ready for play in 1900.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
We have presented at least three contemporaneous reports (from three different sources) that Campbell laid out the original nine in 1894. What evidence have you presented?

[DMoriarty]

Mike, I am not sure how you can call Myopia a substantial architectural advancement of the pre-1900 period if you aren't familiar with what else was out there.    It may have been, but thus far you haven't come close to making your case.  

Didn't Campbell arrive in Boston in March?   Surely the members did not route the course in the middle of the winter, did they?  Note that the article indicates that the layout was recent.  

Looking at those photos and diagrams, I am having a hard time seeing how the hazard placement at Myopia represented a substantial architectural advancement to what else had been ongoing.    Is it merely because a few of these apparent fences/hazards were not completely perpendicular to the line of play?   What of all those that are basically perpendicular?

If the course was indeed "excellent" in the pre-1900 period, then what specifically did Leeds do to make it so?  And what facts justify your belief that Leeds' early changes at Myopia represented a substantial architectural advancement?

_________________________________________

TEPaul, I don't recall ever seeing anything which established that three members laid out the course in the spring of 1894.

In the past you quoted the following, which I believe was from club history:

 “At a meeting of the Executive Committee March 1894 it was decided to build a golflinks on the Myopia grounds. Accordingly the ground was examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut, and play began June 1st, 1894. Members and associates soon began to show much interest in the game, and the first tournament was held June 18th , 1894. About twenty five entries. Won by Herbert Leeds of Boston who was scratch. Score first round 58; second round 54; Total 112. The second tournament held on July 4th , 1894. About twenty entries. Won by Herbert Leeds, scratch 52-61-113.”

This doesn't preclude Campbell at all, does it?   Most of the paragraph is in passive voice; the actor is not identified.  Surely it was the Executive Committee who made the decision, but  the passage does not speak to who actually laid out the course, does it?  If so, where does it say that the members laid out the course?  

Also, can you clarify what of this is an actual  entry into the Run Book and which parts (its any) are Weeks explaining what happened.  Thanks.

[TEPaul]

David:

Sure, be glad to.

Edward Weeks published the Myopia history book in 1975. He worked on the history of the club for many years with another member. The book is over in my office so I can't refer to the passage right now in which he mentioned the three members who staked out the tees and greens of the 1894 nine but I believe I put that passage from Weeks' book on this thread in the past.

What Weeks said about the three members laying out the original nine in the spring of 1894 is very close textually and otherwise to the contemporaneous club administrative records of the spring of 1894. I've read them. Obviously Weeks had them in front of him when he wrote what he did about the original nine.

This is not to say that Campbell was not involved somehow when he arrived in Boston (there is a ship manifest on here with his arrival date in Boston at the end of March); only that the club records of 1894 don't mention him. Actually Campbell was primarily at that time to go to Brookline CC that had also previously had holes laid out by 3-4 members. But the point is the admiinistrative records of Myopia at that time record three members staking out the tees and greens, not Campbell. Myopia was and still is quite different from other clubs in that they seem to have always been very private. I have not seen members including Leeds write articles or even directly quoted in the press. Leeds, certainly was an unusually private person.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Those are very cool pictures, but can you tell us what you think is indicative of the strategy of the golf course or holes in each?

Or, failing that, can you perhaps tell us what we're looking at in each?

You seem to think them somehow meaningful from an architectural standpoint, apparently representing some crude geometric philosophy consistent with most of the work of the time period so please enlighten us if you feel they are evidence of that genre.

Thanks.

[Tom MacWood]

Leeds WAS clearly different, and was the best example of American architecture that utilized old world diagonal concepts prior to Travis's work at Garden City in 1906-07, and prior to NGLA.

Mike
Did Leeds introduce the old world diagonal or did Campbell? Do Kebo and Palmetto also utilize the diagonal?

[TEPaul]

"As for the "long nine" I've never seen anything indicating that it was significantly different from original nine (at least nothing verifiable.)   The only comparison I recall was MacWood's, and according to his comparison all but one hole of the Campbell routing still exist in the present course."


David:

I have never seen that comparison of Tom MacWood's and I'm certainly not aware of it. Could you explain it to us or ask him to? I've asked him to do that about ten times, including again today----eg to try to compare the original 1894 nine to the present course or even the "Long Nine"  but he has ignored the question every time as far as I know.

And also, once again, the club administrative records from the time the original 1894 nine was laid out do not mention Campbell but they do specifcially mention the names of the three members who laid out that original 1894 nine.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul

Tom MacWood had posted copies of a few pages of the Myopia history book, but they are no longer viewable.  (TomM if you send them to me I will repost them.)  

But I do remember the passages somewhat.  If I recall correctly, it seemed to me like Mr. Weeks' was doing his best to figure out what happened based upon the information he had available.  I do not recall him referencing anything that established with certainty that three members laid out the course.  And I don't recall him writing that the Executive Committee ever stated who laid out the course.

In other words, I think Mr. Weeks gave us his best interpretation based on less than perfect information.  I doubt that when he wrote the history that Mr. Weeks had seen the newspaper clippings indicating that Willie Campbell laid out the course.  Had he, don't you think that he might have included Campbell? At the very least, wouldn't those articles have given him a different perspective on the meaning of the records?

Granted, we all have imperfect information, especially those of us who have never seen the club records.  But, like Mr. Weeks, I'll go with the information I do have.  And that information indicates that Campbell laid out the course.   I cannot imagine why two different newspaper articles would have reported it at the opening if Campbell had not laid it out.  

You have seen the minutes and have seen the articles, so you are in a much better position to reconcile the two.  But any such reconciliation carries little weight unless you support your conclusions with verifiable information.  Surely you'd think the same if our positions were reversed.
 
As for Tom MacWood's past comparison of the original nine and the long nine, he can better explain it than I can, but I believe it involved comparing the yardages of each hole.
____________________________________

Mike Cirba,

I am not the one making broad claims about how Leeds' work at early Myopia profoundly advanced the medium.  You are.  is your claim.   I am simply asking you to back it up by establishing 1) what Leeds did at early Myopia, and 2) how did this profoundly advanced the medium?

You wrote:  "You seem to think them somehow meaningful from an architectural standpoint, apparently representing some crude geometric philosophy consistent with most of the work of the time period . . . "  Again Mike, I am not the one drawing broad, oversimplified conclusions about early design based on very limited information.  

As far as what we are looking at, I believe each photo has a caption at the bottom.   I have no idea if they are accurate or not.  You are the one making the broad claims about Myopia during this time period so I was hoping you could explain them to me.

[TEPaul]

David:

I feel your last response is a very good one. I feel it is logical and intelligent and I believe you asked good questions and important ones. I think this is the way a good and productive discussion about the history of an important golf course should develop on a website like this one between people who have various and diverse experiences with a particular subject, including some who have never been there or seen the course. I see some very clear parallels between this subject and the subject of the architectural history of Merion East in its beginning that developed into multiple threads and adverserial and contentious ones at that. I wish that subject on here could've begun with a post like your last one here; but it didn't. I also note that it seems the primary participants on that one and this one are the same and that too is probably fairly interesting. I would prefer to wait for Tom MacWood's responses to various things I asked him that you referenced in your good last post before proceeding; and hopefully productively this time.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Since the gang's all here and playing nicely in the sand box together, I guess I will chip in.....

May I (who knows nothing about Myopia) presume the "long" nine is differentiated from the original nine by being, well....., longer?

I would also be interested in knowing everyone's definition of geometric.  While I was denied access to the course, I confess to sort of a Paul Reveres midnight (well, dusk) ride through the club road, substituting my rented Chevy Cobalt for a horse.  IMHO, and from what I saw, and what I see on the aerial, it appears there are at least some vestiges of gometric bunkering, although it is by no means everywhere. 

Since its stated that the course is pretty much as was, that leads to the question of whether the non geometric bunkering was kind of an experiment of sorts for Campbell, Leeds, or whoever placed them in this time frame, or with the mixing of nines, perhaps some of the cross bunkers were from one or the other.  If the work of one man, it strikes me that perhaps he had an idea, but was at least somewhat timid to use it on all 18 holes, perhaps for fear of reprisals?

Thanks for any knowledgeable answers in advance.

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

How and how much the original 1894 nine at Myopia differed from the "Long Nine" is a very good question and subject and one very much open for analysis and discussion. There are various ancillary and supplemental facts and events to do with the club that need to be known first to be able to do a good analysis of that particular subject, in my opinion.

I believe I know what they are and am willing to discuss them but not until Tom MacWood offers his opinion and analysis of a comparison between the 1894 nine and the Long Nine or the 1894 nine and the holes of the 1900 eighteen hole course which is essentially the way the course is today (at least in hole routing and configuration albeit not necessarily with all the bunkering which Leeds certainly did add to and develop over time sort of ala the Fowneses of Oakmont).

Ordinarily, I would not make analyzing and discussing this specific subject contingent on MacWood doing it but in this case I am since he has implied he understands it and that I and/or the club don't.

So we shall wait and see how or if he responds intelligently and productively to a comparison of the holes of the original 1894 nine to the holes of the 1898 Long Nine or to the holes of the 1900 eighteen hole course. If he continues to ignore the question as he has in the past every time I've asked him to explain his opinion on that specific subject I think that says something important about his purpose and agenda on the subject of Myopia and its architectural history generally.

[Tom MacWood]

"Since the beginning of golf at Myopia Hunt club in 1894 the club has essentially had three golf course iterations:

1. The original 1894 nine.
2. The so-called "Long Nine" that was begun in 1896 and used for the 1898 US Open.
3. The eighteen hole course begun in 1898-99 (shown in that plan above) that was used for the 1901, 1906 and 1908 US Opens and happens to be remarkably similar to the course as it exists today.

There are no real unanswered architectural questions today about the "Long Nine" or the eighteen hole course shown above but there are a few about some of the holes of the original 1894 nine hole course."

TEP
Where did you get your information that the 'long nine' was begun in 1896? Where did you read that?

[TEPaul]

In both the club's records and in the club's history book (Myopia 1875-1975 by Edward Weeks published in 1975). The book has become fairly rare at this point and sought after by some collectors I know. It appears you have had access to it. I suspect and assume your access to it is via Michael Hurzdan and his truly excellent library at his office in Columbus, Ohio). He mentioned to us when we visited him at his office some years ago that there was a person in town who came into his library frequently and who seemingly knew much of the contents of the books and other textual collectibles in his library better than he did. I can't remember if he named you to us or not at the time but I have assumed it was you he was referring to.

[Tom MacWood]

You might want to re-read Weeks' book, not that I would recommend it as good source of information, but that is not what it says.

[TEPaul]

"You might want to re-read Weeks' book, not that I would recommend it as good source of information, but that is not what it says."



Tom MacWood:

I just did. WHAT SPECIFICALLY do you mean 'it is not what it says?'

[Tom MacWood]

Weeks says Leeds became a member of Myopia in 1896, which is true, but he doesn't say when in 1896 he became a member. He then says soon after he became a member he was appointed to the golf committee. He then goes on to say at some point he was asked to lay out the Long Nine. You are speculating this all occurred in 1896, but Weeks does not.

When precisely did he join Myopia in 1896...spring, summer, fall, winter?
Was he appointed to the golf committee in 1896, 1897 or 1898?
What year was he asked to layout the Long Nine, and by whom?

Weeks does not answer any of these questions.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

No, Weeks probably does not get as specific in his 1975 history book (The Myopia Hunt Club centennial history book) about some of those dates and events in the 1890s as some of us today, certainly including you, would like him to have been. And why didn't he? Well, as with other history books of other clubs you have criticized it probably had to do with the fact that his history book was less than 150 pages and it actually devoted as much or more space to the club's history of hunting and polo and tennis at the Myopia Hunt Club than to golf and golf architecture. As with Merion GC and others and their history books that seems to be a concept and reality that you either don't understand, don't recognize, don't appreciate or just don't want to, for some reason.

In other words, Weeks obviously did not write and record in his Myopia History book ever single thing that has been and is reposited in the club's historical records and archives. But it certainly does not mean it is not there. To study it and understand it all, however, one would have to actually establish a working relationship with the club, like any other, and actually go to it to do that more specific and detailed research.