TePaul,
The numbers don't actually lie. Leeds shot a 114 or so in 1894. Campbell probably was better at that time.
However, in addition to Myopia not keeping Campbell's design around more than a year, and with TMac's assumption that Willie taught Leeds everything he knew about golf, it seems they are throwing WC as a teacher under the bus, too. Funny, but there are a lot ways to interpret all that happened, and none of it ever really seems consistent.
I will say this, TMac did unearth some stuff showing that Campbell appeared to do better in big money matches against the same guys who beat him in tournaments. If so, then it should be no surprise Leeds beat him, but history doesn't record if Willie then beat Leeds later in the year in a private match.
I have read the previous posts, and I tend to agree with Mike Cirba about the impact of Willie Campbell on architecture and golf in general. No doubt it was substantial and deserves to be highlighted by TMac, but at the same time, it was so short that I wonder if its as extensive as he portrays.
In short, with him gone, and so many other similar Scot professionals coming over in droves, I don't think we can assume many went back to the well to learn from Willie because there were so many others who could potentially influence the work. We do know not all had the chance because of his tragic death.
At the same time, TMac listed about 20 courses he designed, with some of distinction, but we know there about 900 courses in America, most rudimentary. So, Willie could have only designed about 2-3% of America's early courses, with some of them signifigant, but overall I would think low numbers and short duration limited his impact and also helped to releate him to the second tier in history.
I am glad to know more about him from TMac's research and these threads, though.