Willie Campbell & Myopia

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

The funny thing is that in my last three posts, I actually made no mentions of any facts, theories, or sources on Myopia, and yet, as if on autopilot, you to tell the world that I continued to get the facts wrong....and then imply to the world that I am a drunk.

For the record, I never have more than one glass of wine a week, at that.  I get a headache far quicker than I get a buzz, so the practical thing for me to do was just post on these threads, because they give me a headache just as fast, and for a lot less money!

Mike Cirba,

I would give Dave a pass on the ex wife comment. To be fair, I have occaisionally used her as a humor element and I took it as him recalling that.  I really don't like being called the town drunk, but I blame myself for even being in this thread.  Just don't call me "Otis."

I applaud your comment on providing some drawings of the evolution of Myopia on a separate thread.  TePaul and I went over it on the phone, David did a nice drawing, and then he and TMac debated the hole names, accuracies, etc.  I think it would be great to focus on the course and do a stick drawing to show the start, long nine, and final 18.  I would even volunteer to do the stick drawings that either TePaul or David came up with, if necessary.

TMac,

As I said to David, don't go retyping anything on my account.  Trust me, I remember those bullet points of your argument.  Where is the specific connection to Merion being designed by Barker?  You have six inferences (some very weak and flat out wrong) and then infer it from his schedule, and three unnamed courses in Philly, etc.  Give me one contemporaneous source saying "Barker designed Merion" to counteract about 300 documents saying they did it, with help from CBM.

And I am having trouble with the concept of basing stuff on facts? This is another great example of the double standard you two set for yourselves on these types of threads.

I don't want to rehash Merion any more than you do, nor do I want to get this off tracks.

A while back you suggested that when I have nothing to add, I should stop participating.  I feel I am that point now.  Like you, I do hope some more real info comes forward on this fascinating place (to me).  Whoever brings it, kudos to them.  If its you, I will be the first in line to congratulate you.

Again, have a great Christmas!

[Tom MacWood]

Didn't TMac find an 1897 article that referred to the existence of the golf course at Appleton Farm?

I anyone is going to dig anything up here besides the club minutes, I would think locating a copy of the 1940s book would be the place to start.

The earliest mention of the course at Appleton Farm I have found is 1894. I agree the book may be of interest. Hopefully that author was a little more knowledgeable about the development of golf in Boston than Ted Weeks.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

If that the case then I'll immediately modify the post.  It was an honest question believe it or not.  


Mike Cirba,

As usual your insult meter is dysfunctional.  It only registers in one direction.

________________________________________________

There needs to be emoticon of the little yellow guy spontaneously spitting out their drink, Jon Stewart style, for when someone says something so blatantly dishonest that it shocks the senses.  If I had such an emoticon I'd break from my usual habit of avoiding them and post one right here.  

[TEPaul]

I think Tom MacWood's six distinct points reflected in his #1047 are all the proof anyone would need to endorse my oft-stated belief that this man is an absolutely atrocious GCA historical analyst and perhaps an equally atrocious analyst of anything to do with history itself---or for that matter someone with a virtually total inablility to reason logically.

I would suggest that some of the other participants on this thread allow their young children or grandchildren who may not have the slightest interest in GCA or even history to view his six point post there and explain why. I guarantee it would not be hard at all for a semi-intelligent six grader to do.

[Tom MacWood]

TMac,

As I said to David, don't go retyping anything on my account.  Trust me, I remember those bullet points of your argument.  Where is the specific connection to Merion being designed by Barker?  You have six inferences (some very weak and flat out wrong) and then infer it from his schedule, and three unnamed courses in Philly, etc.  Give me one contemporaneous source saying "Barker designed Merion" to counteract about 300 documents saying they did it, with help from CBM.

And I am having trouble with the concept of basing stuff on facts? This is another great example of the double standard you two set for yourselves on these types of threads.

I don't want to rehash Merion any more than you do, nor do I want to get this off tracks.

A while back you suggested that when I have nothing to add, I should stop participating.  I feel I am that point now.  Like you, I do hope some more real info comes forward on this fascinating place (to me).  Whoever brings it, kudos to them.  If its you, I will be the first in line to congratulate you.

Again, have a great Christmas!

Jeff
I'm starting to wonder if you are hitting the egg nog. If there was a contemporaneous report that Barker designed the course there would have been no reason for the debate. Likewise if there were contemporaneous reports that either Wilson or CBM designed the course no reason for the debate. There weren't any reports of that kind.

I hope to see your point by point for Myopia in the next day or two.

[DMoriarty]

David,

The funny thing is that in my last three posts, I actually made no mentions of any facts, theories, or sources on Myopia, and yet, as if on autopilot, you to tell the world that I continued to get the facts wrong. . .

I said you failed to set the record straight.  And you did fail to set the record straight by falsely claiming that I had dismissed known Myopia records, and by falsely suggesting that we know that records exist at Myopia which address who laid out the course when we don't know this at all.

And you did mention sources on Myopia.  Specifically, you claimed I dismissed "club records known to exist."    Incredibly, you got the facts wrong even when your point concerned what you had written written in your own post.  

[Tom MacWood]

Tom:

That's true, Appleton Farms today, as it is run now which is a trust or foundation does not seem to know anything about the private estate golf course that was there in the early 1890s or even where those six or so holes once were. Today the place operates as something of a research and conservation preserve of grasses and some crops and such. It is also of course open to the public to walk around and so forth. I believe the last of the Appleton family donated it to this effort in the last 12 to 15 or so years and to some degree funded it. The staff there is basically a few youngish people primarily interested in land conservation. I met them all a few years ago when I went there with my Myopia partner Dan Bacon. Ipswich is very close to South Hamilton and Myopia. A young man by the name of Wolcott (last name) which is one of those same generational families of that Boston world works there too and we primarily went to see him. When we got there he was mowing a field.

That is not where I confirmed the existence of the Appleton course of 1892 or 1893. I explained that to you some pages ago when you asked me the same question. Apparently you just don't bother to read what I write when I respond to you (not to even mention that both you and Moriarty have admitted on here several times you generally don't bother to read what I write) so this time as far as I'm concerned you can just look back on this thread or whichever Myopia thread it was on and find it for yourself.

And I have no idea who they were referring to from Philadelphia who was doing a book on early American courses. Maybe they got confused with the fact I asked them if they knew where the old six hole Appleton Farm course was when I went there 3-4 years ago. Or maybe someone from Philadelphia is writing a book about the oldest Boston or American courses. The old course at Appleton Farms is certainly no secret to most good golf and architecture historians, and it's certainly no secret to most of those old generational families of those clubs up there. By the way, my Myopia partner's great grandfather was Robert Bacon, one of the three TCC members who laid out the first holes of the TCC before Willie Campbell first arrived in America.

Good luck. You're the one who calls himself the "expert independent researcher" aren't you?    

TEP
You said you got the information from chronicles of/and some letters and diaries including the Appletons and a few other families of some of their friends. Where did you find those chronicles, letters and diaries, and why aren't you able to pinpoint the date?

[TEPaul]

"Perhaps a thread comparing what we know of the original course versus the "Long Nine" versus the 18 hole course might be worthwhile to explore but even there I sense people who have never been there would try to offer authoritative opinions, which might be funny if it wasn't so non-productive."


Michael:

I think that would be an excellent idea, and frankly it just might help Myopia itself to some extent. As far as what you call "people" who have never been there trying to offer authoritative opinions that are non-productive, just forget about them and ignore them----just DON'T respond to them if you feel they are being non-productive. There is certainly nothing on or about this website that implies any of us have to respond to everyone or anyone's posts or opinions or even questions at any particular point in time or at all for that matter!  

You go first----start with hole #2 which was originally the first hole on the 1894 nine. What do you know about it first-hand or from research and what can you offer? Did you notice that old obsoleted 1894 tee way down the hill near where the old road and driveway used to be? Do you have a feel or any evidence of where that original 1894 green used to be?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Thanks, but I don't think its necessary. I think people can figure out I am not a drunk, but I appreciate your offer.  We have both said some things that are a bit over the line for the circumstances, but I propose we just hit the re-set button for the new year.

Again, happy holidays.

TMac,

See my post above re: my drinking habits.

Let me get this straight, you think its okay to start a debate on who designed a golf course because there are no documents saying they did?  Okay, then I say Robert Trent Jones designed Myopia because there are no documents saying he did........

Are you really serious after hundreds of pages of threads, and scanned images of club minutes, etc., that there was nothing to document the contributions of Wilson, the committee and CBM at Merion?  Is that what you said?

More Alice in Wonderland as far as I can tell....its like through the looking glass!  I guess at least one of us must be hitting that nog!

[Mike Cirba]

Tom Paul,

I will try to start a new thread on the topic tomorrow.   

I'd much rather discuss what is there today, about 90 pct. Of which is Leeds work, than try to continually debate who did what was most probably 2050 very rudimentary yards of golf that was the first Myopia course.

I'm soooooooo tempted to post the drawing of the incredibe architecture of Campbell at Merion to show how insane this thread has become in terms of attmpted historical revisionism.

 

[TEPaul]

MichaelC:

Actually, I may not have read your suggestion to start a thread about the architectural evolution of Myopia hole by hole from the 1894 nine to the Long Nine to the eighteen hole course carefully enough.

You said you were considering starting a new thread on that. Do it! Don't let's add it on to this one as it is over thirty pages now and out of control anyway with Moriarty and MacWood on it.

Start a new thread on this and if MacWood and Moriarty try to come on it with anything remotely resembling their attitude and approach on this one just completely ignore them.

This could be good and frankly very helpful. You go first----you're on #1 in 1894 which is #2 today. Where is the tee and where is the green? And what does it look like out there between them. Believe it or not I found an old photograph a few weeks ago of the old green on my computer. I was sort of blown away by it because it is not hard to recognize where it once was.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

TeP says he has some old photos of MH that he doesn't know how to upload.  I don't know exactly what they show, but I bet they would shed light on what the course looked like in the old days.  Even without design changes, I bet it looks different with changes in maintenance.  Help him out, will ya?

[DMoriarty]

I'm soooooooo tempted to post the drawing of the incredibe architecture of Campbell at Merion to show how insane this thread has become in terms of attmpted historical revisionism.

Please do.  But just realize that you are on both sides of the Campbell argument, given that you are the one who pronounced early Myopia as "revolutionary" and the first great US course.    That is high praise for Campbell, among others, yet usually you disparage him.  

[TEPaul]

"I'd much rather discuss what is there today, about 90 pct. Of which is Leeds work, than try to continually debate who did what was most probably 2050 very rudimentary yards of golf that was the first Myopia course."



Michael:

Then go ahead and do that first if you want to. I can tell you some of the things that happened with the course in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and this decade that is not in Weeks's book in detail. You just cannot believe how far some of the records and personal remembrances of that course go back that are still extant and alive today. We need to have this discussion and I may cut and paste it out to them to get their feedback too. This can be really, really good for us and for Myopia. But DO NOT let either MacWood or Moriarty into that thread by responding to them or I, for one, will be gone.

Take those two "characters" and their attitude, insults, negativity and bullshit revisionism out of this next thread and I would say with extreme confidence it will "FLY" for this website and maybe even for Myopia itself!!

[TEPaul]

"TeP says he has some old photos of MH that he doesn't know how to upload.  I don't know exactly what they show, but I bet they would shed light on what the course looked like in the old days.  Even without design changes, I bet it looks different with changes in maintenance.  Help him out, will ya?"


Jeff:

I do indeed. You just can't believe some of the stuff I have on my computer on Myopia and a number of other courses. And it's all public domain stuff. I didn't find any of it----some of my favorite and best "research moles" did and we share it. They don't have any idea what some of it even means because most of them have never even seen Myopia or some of these courses.

But the private and "non public domain" stuff is an entirely different matter to me. That stuff requires working with the club about it and that seems to be what apparently almost no one on this website seems to understand, not even now! Why is that? What do I have to explain to you on that which I haven't already tried to do on here? What is it? You tell me and I will honestly respond.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Given the holidays, it may be a few days before I'm able to get/post Tom's pics but I'll help however I can.

David,

Since page one, I've never questioned that WC was involved but only questioned hiw nuch, whether the members story was also true, and just how good Campbell's architecture actually was.

As we will see shortly, even if WC was the original archie of the first nine at Myopia, there is almost nothing left of that course save the hole corridors in some places.   

I have nothing against Campbell but will insist his architecture be based on its actual merit and not some romanticized version...his 18 hoie course at TCC was heavuly criticized, for example, and almost completely revamped by Windeler in the next decade or so.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

To be honest, even if its not very good, I agree with Melvyn and TMac that he is still an important transistional figure. Given the times, transplanting golf courses to new conditions from what they had traditionally been built in wasn't easy.

On the other hand, I did comment once here that it would almost be a slap to WC to credit him with Myopia, since it lasted only a year or so before being rebuilt, and there is some evidence that the club was thinking that way from the very get go.  Weeks called them the improvised links, and history shows they were changed quickly.  If it were one of my early courses, under the circumstances, I might let the members have the credit!

I didn't know that much about him until reading back through some of TMac's stuff.  It really was some good stuff, including him and his wife committing to public golf and spreading the game.  But I am pretty sure if he was going to delve in his career a bit, he would find better examples of his work to tout his overall ability as a gca.

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

I think that last post of yours is level-headed and realistic about Campbell and his architecture, historically and otherwise!

Look, the man was an important person for sure in really early American golf albeit probably not in its architecture. The poor guy died in 1900 at 38 after being over here for about six years. Imagine that! I mean to me it's tragic but life is filled with all kinds of little tragedies and luck and breaks and fate or whatever. He ran his ass off all over the damn place to do all kinds of things, and important things for Americans just beginning to get interested in golf back then in his short time over here; important things like teach them and show them what good golf looked like for Christ's Sake! Let's give the man a whole lot of credit for that! The best golf historians do; Weeks did if anyone even bothers to read that part of his book.

But his architecture? Maybe he could've been great if he was given the time and the money and the opportunity and the life-span to do what some of the others he was here with for such a short time began to do and had the time to do through the first and second decade of the 20th century, particularly those early "amateur/sportsmen" like Leeds who had the time and the money to last it out and produce.

None of this is any knock on Willie Campbell, that's for sure, even if a couple of adverserial jack-wagons like MacWood and Moriarty are trying to make it look like some of us are saying that. We aren't and we never have. The worst we ever did is have to listen to those two jackass jokers tell us that's what we said about him without being able to properly deny their distorted dialetic about what we said or meant about him. Whatever he did with his architecture over here, amongst so many other things he tried to do in a short time, just simply did not last; it's essentially about all gone now; changed, improved, whatever, to something else.

I don't think a single one of us on here ever said or even implied that Willie Campbell had nothing to do with Myopia, he obviously had something to do with it in 1894 but apparently not enough for the club to mention because they just never felt it was significant enough. What made Myopia famous was not Willie Campbell, it was Herbert Leeds, and everyone who knew anything about golf and architecture back then, including the likes of Macdonald, knew that and said that, and wrote that. And on the subject of Leeds, and if or whether he ever tried to actually promote himself at any time, I would challenge anyone on here to find me a direct quotation from Herbert Leeds himself about anything he ever did in golf architecture!  The only one I have ever seen was from Week's from Leed's personal papers or perhaps diary known as the "Leeds Scrapbook" that was never published or made public!

There is no reason at all for anyone to try to change that history today or at any time in the future. It's done now and it was all well enough recorded!

Edward Weeks, long time Myopia member and long time career print media executive and editor (28 years as editor of the American staple magazine "Atlantic Monthly") did a great job with his 147 page Myopia centennial history book that covered, fox hunting, polo, tennis and golf at Myopia Hunt club over 100 years.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
The reason this thread was rehashed was due to your idiotic comment about Leeds not utilizing geometric features in the 1890s. I don't think you have a very good or accurate perspective of golf architecture development. In looking at how golf architecture developed in America Boston was arguably the epicenter of that early development, and Campbell was a key figure. With all due respect to Leeds and what he did at Myopia and elsewhere its hard to ignore Campbell's influence on him as a golfer and as a golf architect.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom and Tom,

I actually would love someone to post an aerial in this or another thread titled: "Leeds Myopia - Geometric or not?"

I looked at the aerial and obliques, and my own rushed photos and quite frankly, thought it looked like sort of a transitional mix.  I saw some things at right angles, but by no means are all or even most of them that way, with some open to interpretation, of course.

We might not agree much on that either, from the sounds of the post above, but had that been the way the thread went, it would have been fascinating stuff.  If we had Leeds scrapbook, we might know exactly how Willie affected him as a golfer and gca.  We know he won the opening tournaments at MH so Willie couldn't have worked his magic that quickly could he?  Even so, we would have the talent vs teaching debate.

To see some examples of Willie's work unchanged, much like Leeds Myopia would also show if there was an influence.  Are there any museum piece Cambell courses left, or photos before they were changed?

BTW, I would post the aerial myself, but like TMac, on my browser, that just doesn't happen any more on gca. com.

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff
Are you familiar with how Myopia developed and Leeds travels overseas?

Here is a link to the Tweedie thread where the 1890s and early 1900 Myopia was shown to have typical geometric features.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46602.70.html

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff:

I think that last post of yours is level-headed and realistic about Campbell and his architecture, historically and otherwise!

Look, the man was an important person for sure in really early American golf albeit probably not in its architecture. The poor guy died in 1900 at 38 after being over here for about six years. Imagine that! I mean to me it's tragic but life is filled with all kinds of little tragedies and luck and breaks and fate or whatever. He ran his ass off all over the damn place to do all kinds of things, and important things for Americans just beginning to get interested in golf back then in his short time over here; important things like teach them and show them what good golf looked like for Christ's Sake! Let's give the man a whole lot of credit for that! The best golf historians do; Weeks did if anyone even bothers to read that part of his book.

But his architecture? Maybe he could've been great if he was given the time and the money and the opportunity and the life-span to do what some of the others he was here with for such a short time began to do and had the time to do through the first and second decade of the 20th century, particularly those early "amateur/sportsmen" like Leeds who had the time and the money to last it out and produce.

None of this is any knock on Willie Campbell, that's for sure, even if a couple of adverserial jack-wagons like MacWood and Moriarty are trying to make it look like some of us are saying that. We aren't and we never have. The worst we ever did is have to listen to those two jackass jokers tell us that's what we said about him without being able to properly deny their distorted dialetic about what we said or meant about him. Whatever he did with his architecture over here, amongst so many other things he tried to do in a short time, just simply did not last; it's essentially about all gone now; changed, improved, whatever, to something else.

I don't think a single one of us on here ever said or even implied that Willie Campbell had nothing to do with Myopia, he obviously had something to do with it in 1894 but apparently not enough for the club to mention because they just never felt it was significant enough. What made Myopia famous was not Willie Campbell, it was Herbert Leeds, and everyone who knew anything about golf and architecture back then, including the likes of Macdonald, knew that and said that, and wrote that. And on the subject of Leeds, and if or whether he ever tried to actually promote himself at any time, I would challenge anyone on here to find me a direct quotation from Herbert Leeds himself about anything he ever did in golf architecture!  The only one I have ever seen was from Week's from Leed's personal papers or perhaps diary known as the "Leeds Scrapbook" that was never published or made public!

There is no reason at all for anyone to try to change that history today or at any time in the future. It's done now and it was all well enough recorded!

Edward Weeks, long time Myopia member and long time career print media executive and editor (28 years as editor of the American staple magazine "Atlantic Monthly") did a great job with his 147 page Myopia centennial history book that covered, fox hunting, polo, tennis and golf at Myopia Hunt club over 100 years.

TEP
Herbert Carey Leeds. You would have thought Weeks would've at least got his name right.

[TEPaul]

MichaelC:

I'll tell you what; I would love to see YOU start a thread on the design evolution of the three iterations of Myopia and we can discuss it hole by hole.

It seems Tom MacWood who started this thread close to a year and a half ago and reprised it again as did Moriarty-------but note, no one else on this website ever kept bringing it back as they did! MacWood just changed the name of this thread, and apparently he's the only one who can because he began it in August 2009. Catch it and appreciate it on #1068. I am outta this one with that crap by MacWood.

You start a new thread on Myopia and we can discuss its evolution hole by hole but now I have a condition and contingency on here. If either one of those two jokers makes a post on your new thread, I'm gone, and in that case, as far as I'm concerned, all the rest of you can just have a couple of newspaper articles from 1894 to discuss (as the only "supportable evidence" of Myopia's history which is Moriarty's egotistical and selfish limitation and proposal) until Kingdom Comes or until Heidi Klum gets too old for me to want to go to bed with her anymore.

I can help you guys a lot with Myopia's internal history and archives or I sure can speak with them to try to do that but not if MacWood and Moriarty remain on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.

If they remain on here this is all over for me on these subjects on here on the likes of Myopia and Merion. They've both run their course with their insults and attitudes; I have better things to do like actually working with clubs on their histories, working with the USGA Archive and writing some papers-----but my primary job is going to be protecting the century long conspiracy story that a run-of-the-mill insurance man and know-nothing novice golf architect, Hugh Wilson, was the primary architect of Merion East instead of C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam!! That I must protect at all costs-----or at least until the 2013 US Open is over.

After that I will produce and publish my memoirs, if I'm still around and kickin' and fightin' and fussin'.

[DMoriarty]

Skimming through TEPaul's rants above, I was struck by two of his comments that I think really go to the heart of his position and that of Jeffrey and Mike.

"I don't think a single one of us on here ever said or even implied that Willie Campbell had nothing to do with Myopia, he obviously had something to do with it in 1894 but apparently not enough for the club to mention because they just never felt it was significant enough."

On the one hand we have three contemporaneous reports that Campbell laid out the course, and multiple contemporaneous reports indicating that this happened after mid-May 1894. On the other hand we have a history written 80+ years after the fact that claims that AM&G laid out the course beginning in early March of 1894.  The one contemporaneous quote offered as support Weeks' version neither mentions who laid out the course or when it was laid out.   The history makes no mention of Campbell at all.  

TEPaul's explanation as to why Campbell wasn't mentioned?   Well he did something (likely manual labor) but whatever he did, it wasn't significant enough to deserve mention.  Never mind there were multiple reports that Campbell laid out the course.  If Weeks did not mention it, then it is not worth mentioning.

This fits in perfectly with the second comment which pretty much speaks for itself:

"There is no reason at all for anyone to try to change that history today or at any time in the future. It's done now and it was all well enough recorded!"


I don't suppose that either Mike Cirba and Jeff Brauer have a problem with these quotes, given they have both said pretty much the same thing on multiple occasions.  

I can see that I have been the real fool here, for I should have realized from the beginning that you just cannot argue with logic like that.
__________________________________________

TEPaul,

If we post on Mike's thread, you are gone?   With what has come out in this thread, I don't blame you.  But isn't this post of mine close enough?  

I am sure Merion is thrilled that you are determined to continue to make a mockery of their history through 2013.  
__________________________

Mike Cirba,

I see your sense of righteous indignation and fair play has left you again when it comes to TEPaul.  

[Tom MacWood]

David
TEP believes golf architecture history began and ended with Cornish & Whitten, if its not in there it never happened. He also believes the earth is flat.