Willie Campbell & Myopia

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Yes, your reporting of the weather in the spring of 1894!!! You said some newspaper article said there was a foot and a half of snow on April 9th 1894 and another newspaper article said they were playing golf on the 11th 1894. Do you suppose those newspaper reporters in 1894 bothered to look out the window or are you just making this stuff up? Either way neither you nor those newspaper articles has much credibility. Doesn't bode well either for the credibility of those other newspaper articles that claim Willie Campbell laid out Myopia in 1894!

[TEPaul]

The six hole Appleton Farm course was in existence in 1892 or 1893. Appletion Farm in Ipswich is still there and it appears to hold a most unique distinction in American history.

According to the good new history book "The Story of Golf at the Country Club" (2009) by John St. de Jorre, golf first was seen in Massachussets when George Wright had a course temporarily laid out in Franklin Park. Golf was established in Massachussets when Florence D. Boit brought some golf clubs and balls from Pau, France, in 1892 and a course was laid out on the estate of her uncle and aunt, Mr. and Mrs. Arthur B. Hunnewell, in Wellesley. It goes on to say that the man there at that first exhibition of golf on the Hunnewell estate who introduced golf to TCC was Laurence Curtis. He would become a president of the USGA and a founder of the Mass. Golf Assoc. of which Herbert Leeds was the first president. Curtis was the father of the famous Curtis sisters, Margaret and Harriot, both of whom won US Amateurs and for whom the Curtis Cup (the women's counterpart to the men's Walker Cup) is named.

[Tom MacWood]

The six hole Appleton Farm course was in existence in 1892 or 1893. Appletion Farm in Ipswich is still there and it appears to hold a most unique distinction in American history.

Sure it was...did that come to you in a dream too? Some of us prefer contemporaneous reports to invented records.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Then you should visit the Appleton Farm. I did about three years ago. If you do perhaps you could stop in and visit Myopia for the first time. It is certainly not far away.

Speaking of dreams---how about those newspaper articles that report there was a foot and a half of snow in Boston on April 9th and the other one that reported they were playing golf at TCC on April 11th? Who was dreaming with those---the reporters or you or all three of you?

By the way, I don't believe you adequately answered Jeff Brauer's question on his #690? Would you care to do that?   

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
From another article in the Boston Globe 4/2/1899 there is was good article on the beginnings of golf in New England. The article quotes Lawrence Curtis:

"Golf was first played in New England at Wellesley, Mass, on the estate of Arthur Hunnewell. A young lady from Pau, visiting his family in the summer of 1892 brought with her a set clubs, balls, etc, and showed the manner of using them. Mr. Hunnewell, owning adjacent estates, all ardent lovers of out-of doors sports, were quick to recognize the attractions of the game and they and a few of their friends eagerly adopted it."

The article goes to say members of The Country Club tried the game at Wellesley and subsequently introduced it at Clyde Park. Brookline was followed by courses at Essex County, Prides Crossing and Myopia. There is no mention of the Appleton Farms.

This article also goes into the story about George Wright. On December 10, 1890 a party of men who were prominent in baseball, cricket, tennis and lacrosse went to Franklin Park to play the game. Some of those involved: George Wright (cricket and baseball). Fred Mansfield (tennis), Sam Macdonald (lacrosse), and two or three others. The next day a Boston paper reported: "The royal game of golf was played on the local grounds yesterday for, it is believed, the first time in the history of the city." On March 28, 1891 the same group essentially went to Crescent Beach and again tried to play the game.

The article goes on to list all the courses in New England, including some private ones, but no mention of Appleton Farms, perhaps because it was only six holes. Where did you get the information that the course was laid out in 1892 or 1893?

[Tom MacWood]

#690?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

It seems the article did not mention the Phillip's course at their Moraine Farm on Wenham Lake so I suppose in your mind it didn't exist either and Weeks and others are wrong again. It is interesting to me how when you are not aware of something you automatically conclude it can't be true. REALLY strange for sure! Is that some kind of "condition" we should  be aware of so at least we can begin to understand why your logic is so bizarre on these subjects on this website and for so long?

[TEPaul]

"#690?"


#630

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
I answered Jeff in post #635, and then in post #637 he admitted he was confused when he asked the question.

Your information on Appleton Farm and Moraine Farm comes from Weeks' book, and he does not date either course. I would suggest you try to confirm his info.

Where are you coming up with the date of 1892 or 1893 for Appleton Farms?

[DMoriarty]

Niall,

They were reportedly playing on these early courses very soon after they were laid out.   According to multiple press accounts Myopia had not been laid out as of mid-May, yet the course opened with a Bunker Hill Day tournament in mid-June.  As I said, three separate accounts from around this time note that Willie Campbell laid out the course.  The most detailed account of the opening (the one that lists the hole names) noted that course has only been laid out for a few days.

Campbell was at the Country Club well into May.  My impression from the various newspaper accounts is that Willie Campbell laid out the course at Myopia right before the summer social season began, which was right around the first of June.

Mike Cirba wrote:

David,

I believe the totality of the Weeks account, TP's concurrence, as well as the news articles I found naming two of the men to a committee responsible for bringing golf to Myopia, as well as their status as "experts" to the locals (presumably due to prior experience on an estate course) is all indicative of their involvement in routing and staking out the original course.

In isolation, they are not conclusive but together make a compelling circumstantial case in my opinion.

Mike, aside from the bit about the estate course, you are just repeating yourself.  And frankly it seems like more than a bit of alchemy to me.  

You did explain your reliance on the "expert" mention, so thank you for that.  Let's take another look at the June 10, 1894 blurb previewing the opening tournament which was to take place about a week later.  The blurb was from a society "Gossip" column:

Bunker Hill day will be observed at the Myopia Hunt by the initial games in two newly laid out golf links. The expert players who will take part are Mr W. B. Thomas, Mr R. M. Appleton, Mr A. P. Gardner and Mr T. Watson  Merrill.

You had already come up with some far fetched theories based on this blurb.  First you claimed that article meant that these four had played a match on the course in early June, and you speculated that it was an "exhibition match," presumably because they were experts worthy of such an exhibition.  Yet it is obviously previewing the opening tournament.  Next you speculated that they were playing on only two new holes, because of the mention of "two new links."  Given that they played two rounds over the 9 hole course, and given it was written by a gossip columnist and not a golfer, a better explanation is that the "two new links" were her garbled way of saying they would play over the new links twice.

Now you have really outdone yourself.   

You posit that they were called "experts to the locals (presumably because of their prior experience on an estate course.")

Huh? What "prior experience on an estate course?"   Given the context you must mean design experience; after all they mostly golfed at the CC and if you don't mean design experience your reliance on this blurb makes even less sense.  But apparently not even you have the chutzpah to come right out and say that you are inferring design experience from this blurb, so you just left it vague.   I don't blame you. 

Could you tell us what exactly we are supposed to take from this article?  And why we should rely on a Gossip columnist who apparently doesn't know much about the game?  Or why the people mentioned weren't even the exact same people who were allegedly involved with the estate course, a course that may not even have existed at the time and the origins pretty fuzzy as well?

Or we could just cut to the quick and you could admit that the article indicates nothing more than:  1) These four would be playing in Bunker Hill tournament; 2) As bad as they may have been, they were among the better golfers around at the time.  Excepting Campbell of course.  

Likewise, the other blurb establishes nothing more than those different men were appointed with the sub-committee to bring golf to Myopia.  

[TEPaul]

"TEP
I answered Jeff in post #635, and then in post #637 he admitted he was confused when he asked the question."

Tom MacWood:

Then you should read #630 again. It is just amazing how confused you are on this website. You just seem to say anything, no matter how irrelevent. Look at Jeff Brauer's last point on #630.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
One more time, I answered his question in post #635, he then responded in post #637 and admitted he was confused. As I said in my post I don't recall you re-typing anything on this thread, and I don't recall commenting about something Mike C retyped on here either. What did you re-type that I said was speculation? When did I say something Mike C re-typed was speculation

You are constantly speculating, but believe me speculation is the least of your problems.

[DMoriarty]

Turning to the Weeks' account and TEPaul's recollection of the club records, there are a few things I don't understand, and was hoping that someone - anyone - could explain.  

One thing I don't understand is from the descriptions of what happened "after the snow melted?"
- TEPaul has repeatedly written that in the early spring of 1894, after the snow melted, Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner staked out the course.  
- Weeks wrote that after the snow melted, the paced off the course and "probably" used pegs to mark the greens.  

The "pegs" vs. "stakes" part doesn't bother me, but the "probably" part does.  Weeks was obviously speculating about whether they marked off the course.  Yet TEPaul is not speculating when he claims the same?  So what gives?  How can TEPaul present something as fact when Weeks was obviously speculating about basically the same thing?  They are supposed to have looked at the same records, except that Weeks supposedly had even more (the scrapbook) so how come TEPaul is sure of himself where Weeks was speculating?

Another thing I don't understand about the records concerns Robert White.   TEPaul has claimed more than once that the Myopia records indicate that, in 1896-1897 (and possibly 1895) Robert White was the professional at Myopia.  Again, this is supposed to be from the club records which should be a contemporaneous account of what happened and therefore ought to be reliable.   Yet Robert White was reportedly in Ohio in 1896 and beyond (In the old papers I have found mention of him at Myopia in 1895, but not beyond.)

If White was in Ohio, what gives?  Are Myopia's records from 1896 and 1897 wrong?   Or is TEPaul's claimed recollection of the records incorrect.

Is it a coincidence that (according to TEPaul a few years ago) Week's account puts White at Myopia during this time period?  According to TEPaul, Weeks even has White helping Leeds lay out the "long nine" in 1896.  How did Weeks know that?  Where did Weeks get his information?  If White was in Ohio, how could both Weeks and TEPaul have him at Myopia?

Tom MacWood, are you sure that White was in Ohio in 1896?  Or are Myopia's records from 1896 and 1897 wrong?   Or is TEPaul's recollection of what he read in the records incorrect?   And what about Weeks? If he had the contemporaneous records, then how could he have put White at Myopia helping Leeds when White was apparently in Ohio?

Also,  If they had the records and the records identify the professionals and their tenure, then why the hesitance about 1895?  Surely the records don't say White was possibly the professional in 1895?  Was there something about the records that made this unclear because there seems to be speculation here on the part of Weeks and TEPaul.

Bottom line is that there is something askew with the Weeks history and TEPaul's recollection of the records. And/or Myopia's records leave much more to the imagination than TEPaul has let on.  

And this is even before considering all the apparent conflicts between TEPaul's account and Weeks account, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the contemporaneous press clippings about how the course had not yet been laid out before mid-May, and the press clippings clearly stating that Campbell designed the course.  

TEPaul?  Mike? Anyone?

[Mike Cirba]

This thread is indeed becoming comical.

Please show us anywhere that it says Campbell "designed" the course.

The press reports in mid-April indicate that three members were responsible for bringing golf to Myopia in the coming season.

A report in mid-May indicates the course has not yet been Llaid outL, yet you can see the entire course from a high vantage point. How could this be?   Simply because the staked out course has not yet been constructed, or laid out on the ground.

A report a month later calls the three men who Weeks tells us the contemporaneous records state planned the course are "experts" in the new game, so its not surprising they would have the confidence of the membership in their appointed task..

Pro Campbell is evidently brought over sometime to help get the course going, most likely building tees and greens and likely placing some cross bunker hazards.

This is not rocket science...sheesh..

Why in the heck would poor Mr. Weeks lie about any of this? 

Yet, two guys who have never been there or even tried to see the clubs records think nothing of dragging his name thru the mud without a clue of what he saw or read or relied on...

Pretty comical and pretty pathetic, I'd say.

[Phil_the_Author]

David asks a very good question:

"TEPaul has claimed more than once that the Myopia records indicate that, in 1896-1897 (and possibly 1895) Robert White was the professional at Myopia.  Again, this is supposed to be from the club records which should be a contemporaneous account of what happened and therefore ought to be reliable.   Yet Robert White was reportedly in Ohio in 1896 and beyond (In the old papers I have found mention of him at Myopia in 1895, but not beyond.)

"If White was in Ohio, what gives?  Are Myopia's records from 1896 and 1897 wrong?   Or is TEPaul's claimed recollection of the records incorrect..."

It appears that White WAS the professional at Myopia in 1896, at least according to the New York Evening Post, June 24, 1896 (bottom several lines)



So it appears that Tom Paul's "claimed recollection of the records" is correct as far as 1896 is concerned...

This brings up the question then of WHEN did White go to Ohio? If it was in 1896, it would appear that it must have been at least in the fall of the year if not later since he was playing in professional tournaments representing Myopia at the end of June 1896...

As David has brought up before this, there are a number of newspaper accounts that also mention Willie Campbell as being a professional from the Myopia Golf Club in 1896. Exactly WHEN did this come about as you'll note that there is also a "William Campbell, UNATTACHED" playing as well!

[DMoriarty]

I should have said that he reportedly "laid out" the course.  As for the rest, come on.   


The April article They were put in charge of bringing golf to Myopia, it hadn't happened yet, and wouldn't until Campbell reportedly laid out the course.

The May articles (there are two) did not indicate you could see the the whole course.   It said that you would be able to see the whole course.  There was no course yet.   So they had chosen the general location of the course, but it had not been laid out, and there is no indication that they had gone beyond this.  Your speculation that the course must have been already there is ridiculous, especially when the same article said the course had not yet been laid out.

As for your "expert golfers," give me a break.

And no one is dragging Weeks in the mud, Mike.    Surely he did the best he could with the information he had, and was trying to write an interesting narrative to boot.

I agree it is not rocket science.  So you need to come back to earth and find some sound factual grounding for your theories.  Because you have none. 

____________________________________________

Philip, thanks for posting the article, but that is sure some spiffy parsing you did of my quote, especially how you managed to leave out the part where I asked Tom MacWood to confirm whether or not White was in Ohio in 1896.  Nice.  Given that it apparently takes only one old article to convince you of a fact, then you must be convinced that Campbell laid out Myopia at least three times over.  Or, like with Mike, does it have to be an article you agree with?  And how do you go from a June 24th article to the statement that appears that he must not have left until "at least the fall of the year if not later?"    Why couldn't he have left any time after June 24?

All that said, it looks like he may still have been at Myopia in June 1896.  But I'd still like to hear why Tom MacWood had him in Cincinnati in 1896.  Or was it you who put him in Cincinnati in 1896?

I have a report of Robert White traveling to Cincinnati on business in April 1896, but nothing beyond that, so far, but I'd like to nail it down further.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
I think you are right White was at Myopia for part of 1896, but did he play in the 1896 Open? I don't think so. Was Campbell unattached when the championship was played? No, he was attached to Myopia. As I said a page or two back late in 1895 it was announced TCC was not rehiring Campbell, early in 1896 he was hanging around Philadelphia and then showed up at Myopia in the summer. White did play in the 1897 and 1898 Opens attached to Cinti.

[Tom MacWood]

All that said, it looks like he may still have been at Myopia in June 1896.  But I'd still like to hear why Tom MacWood had him in Cincinnati in 1896.  Or was it you who put him in Cincinnati in 1896?

David
The article Phil quoted about White working at Myopia in 1894 also had White working at Cinti in 1896, although Phil decided for whatever reason not to include that part. I think it is very possible White was in Cinti in 1896. White's father migrated to the US in 1896, and White's brother lived in Cinti.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

Take it easy. I did not "parse" or intentionally leave out things from what you wrote in any attempt to make you look bad as you apparently feel because of the tenor of your response. I quoted DIRECTLY from what you wrote and as far as "parsing" of what was written goes, you seem to be doing a bit of it yourself.

You seem to be ignoring what I asked, "This brings up the question then of WHEN did White go to Ohio? If it was in 1896, it would appear that it must have been at least in the fall of the year if not later since he was playing in professional tournaments representing Myopia at the end of June 1896..."

I was under the impression that he had gone out to Ohio in the beginning of 1896 and was quite surprised to find this article. It clearly states that as of June 24, 1896, that White was the professional at Myopia and also that Campbell was NOT ("unattached"). Why should it be so hard for you to simply say that here is a contemporary piece of factual evidence that shows that tom Paul was at least partly correct? It certainly doesn't have anything to do in anyway in the question of who designed and/or laid out Myopia 2+ years earlier.

You also asked, “And how do you go from a June 24th article to the statement that appears that he must not have left until "at least the fall of the year if not later?"    Why couldn't he have left any time after June 24?”

Once again you ignore what I ACTUALLY wrote: “it would appear that it must have been at least in the fall of the year if not later…”

APPEAR is the word I used. I did so because I would find it quite surprising to see him changing positions in the middle of summer as these were more likely to occur for the professionals of the day in either the Fall or spring. Heck, he could have left their employ on June 25th; so what? Isn’t the REAL point that Tom Paul was correct in his statement that he was working as Myopia’s professional in 1896? You just can’t seem to admit that Tom made even a partly correct statement. Be gracious on that David. White’s being employed by Myopia in 1896 doesn’t mean that Tom and/or Jeff’s supposition that he worked on Myopia with Campbell is correct. Does it make it a little bit more likely? Yes, but it doesn’t even begin to approach the actuality of factual proof.

By the way, you did ask Tom Macwood if White was in Ohio and not at Myopia in 1896. I can’t help that he didn’t answer it for you. Then again you did end that post by asking “Tom, Mike, ANYONE?” I believe I fall into the latter category.

Tom did address the question of White being at Myopia or Ohio in 1896 prior to your question and each time he gave answers that appeared to state that He was in Ohio and NOT at Myopia:
 
Post #626
Obviously the fact White was in Cincinnati in 1896 had everything to do with TEP's statement. White being at Myopia in 1894 has nothing to do with who designed Myopia either so I was curious why chose not to include it. Just wondering.

Post #628
Phil
Its no big deal I was just curious. TEP & Jeff had just been speculating that Campbell was working simulatenously with White in 1896...perhaps you weren't following the thread. Carry on.

Post #635
Jeff
You are obviously confused. No one has ever claimed Campbell was the professional at Myopia in 1894. He was the pro at Myopia in 1896.

Actually, I think there is a rather fascinating picture being painted about Robert White that hasn't been touched on and deserves its own thread later. That is, exactly WHEN did he begin doing architectural work? It seems that it was the common practice for nearly all Scottish professionals who emigrated to the US to get into the design business very quickly, yet Myopia didn't hire him to design their course or participate in the laying out of it or adding any features during his 2+ years there. That seems to be the exception to the "Scottish pro in America designs courses" rule that was so prevalent at that time. What held him back? Is it possible that he was hired by Myopia with the intent that he would take part in the laying out of the course and then when Campbell arrived on the scene, more established and a much bigger name, that they kept him on and used Campbell for what he was going to do?

Those are reasonable questions, all that come about because of the dynamics of the time period and the evolution of the game in America and how professionals were viewed and courses designed. I think what happened at Myopia is a great case study for all of this and when all is fleshed out will be of great help in understanding what might have happened elsewhere.

Tom, I apologize as I didn't see your latest post regarding White in Cincy in 1896 until after I posted this.

[DMoriarty]

Phillip.   You should read my post again.  I used the word "appears" when referring to your post as well.   As for the rest, whatever you say.
____________________

Back to the topic at hand.  Tom is right, it was you who brought in that White was in Cincinnati in 1896, not Tom.  

And I am not so sure what the list in your latest article is all about, or what we can draw from it.  It purports to be a list of players "all of whom will start with reasonable certainty."   What does that mean?  Are they applicants?  If so, when did they apply?  That would tell us when Robert White still thought he was working at Myopia.  

Anyway is difficult to tell what exactly we can take from this or from when or where this guy got his information.  

The Boston Globe, July 19, 1896, reported the results of the tournament.  Robert White was not listed among the competitors, and Campbell is listed as from Myopia.  

By the way, in that article, whoever that amateur was who predicted the results did pretty well, going two for three, with Whigham and one of the Foulis Brother's winning.

_______________________________

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

I'm sorry you have obviously taken what I posted as a personal attack. Again, it wasn't meant that way.

As you stated, though, "back to the topic at hand."

Yes, I did state that White went to Ohio in 1896. I even said so again up above and that I was "surprised" to see that this article state that he was working for Myopia on JUNE 24th and that Campbell evidently was not. That is one of the things that you can take from the article.

Secondly, the 7/19/1896 article is one that YOU need to post. (C'mon now, I accept that you aren't misquoting, but you demand that Tom Paul and the others post their sources so you need to do so as well). I have no doubt of your accuracy but simply because it doesn't list Robert White as being AMONG THOSE WHO FINISHED the tournament doesn't mean he DIDN'T compete. I have seen far too many newspaper accounts of tournaments during those early years where not all those who start are around at the finish. I would consider what you POSTED as proof of nothing more than that Campbell PROBABLY had been hired to take his position by then and that MAYBE White didn't play. Just as you want a date for the "applications" list I want a LIST of all those who BEGAN PLAY.

[DMoriarty]

1. I don't think the article tells us where they each worked on June 24.  It tells us where the reporter thought they worked according to whatever list he had, but we'd need to know more about the list.

2.  Dont tell me what i need to post.  I've never demanded that TEPaul or Mike post information or articles that are easily accessible, and I have certainly never made such demands out some warped sense of tit-for-tat justice, like you are doing here.

3.  I don't give a damn what you want.  Unlike you previously with the other article i didnt broadly speculate about what the Globe article meant. I merely informed you that it didn't list White, and that Campbell was listed as from Myopia.  Beyond that look it up yourself.

[TEPaul]

"Those are reasonable questions, all that come about because of the dynamics of the time period and the evolution of the game in America and how professionals were viewed and courses designed. I think what happened at Myopia is a great case study for all of this and when all is fleshed out will be of great help in understanding what might have happened elsewhere."


I do too, Phil; I do too. I think what happened at Myopia may be a great case study that may be of great help in understanding what  happened elsewhere on some of the most impressive and respected architecture in American golf architecture's history. I've felt that for some years about Myopia since it and Leeds were so early. Myopia's architect and its architectural history was part of the reason I wrote that article for the program of the 2009 Walker Cup held at Merion entitled "Hugh I. Wilson and the Age of the Amateur/Sportsman Architect."  The theme of the article essentially concentrated on six amateur/sportsman architects and their long term project courses---eg in chronolgical order, Myopia, GCGC, Oakmont, NGLA, Merion East and Pine Valley.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

Thank you for the very gracious reply!

Tom Paul, as you can see, I've produced contemporaneous, factual, evidentiary proof that YOU were Correct when you stated that Robert White was definitely the professional at Myopia during the year 1896. It was most encouraging to see that David has seen the light when it comes to the new era of congeniality and showing respect on the Discussion Board and admitted that he was mistaken in his perception that YOU were wrong in this! 

[TEPaul]

I guess I must have missed that, Phil, but I trust you will point it out to me. What I do notice, however, is when the same "usual suspects" are participating on these kinds of threads they all seem to evolve in a remarkably similar way. They include Merion, NGLA, GCGC, North Shore, Shawnee, and now Myopia.

I did think you made a very good point in the end of #693 but I doubt that subject would develop and be discussed on here very well if a couple of our "usual suspects" participated in it.