[DMoriarty]

Phillip
The article was by "the GOLF writer" who also happened to mention a tennis court?   Nonsense.  

Both blurbs were from a long, bulletin board article reporting on the goings on of the social set at the North Shore. The information in such columns was generally compiled from various sources.   There is no way one can reasonably call the author a "GOLF writer."  

You say there are other accounts from the mid 1890's where "laying out" a course meant only construction with no planning element?   I'd like to see those examples, especially from golf courses laid out in the mid-1890's.  

Surely you acknowledge that oftentimes laying out a course and planning it were often the same step?  In fact I remember you arguing this very thing in the past!

In short, I think yours is a logical fallacy:  You are equating construction and laying it as if the words had the same meaning and meant nothing else, and are working from a particular example (a tennis court) and generalizing from there to circumstances that are by their nature very different (a golf course.)   Laying out a tennis court is not the same thing as laying out a golf course.  Some of these early golf courses were not constructed at all.  But they were "laid out" on the ground.  

I met a dog named Phil.  Your name is Phil, therefore are you a dog?   I doubt it.  

____________________________________

Mike Cirba.  

I am not forgetting about the sod at all.   I am also not forgetting that reportedly  the conditions were so rough that some of the membership objected to playing on the sodded course.    

________________________________________

Phillip, Your last post makes no sense.   I made no blanket final statement.  Rather, I was clearly talking about the support (or lack thereof) for the belief held here about AM&G.   One cannot use that which about which one is unaware as support, can they?   (Apparently some here think they can.)

Plus, I've always left open the possibility that more information will be found and that I will change my conclusions based upon that information, so I don't understand the point of your last post.  

We cannot pretend that there is information out there that will support this conclusion.   Unless one of us is withholding information, then none of us has any contemporaneous support for the notion that AM&G designed the course.  

No doubt if this were about Tillie instead of Campbell you'd find much less ambiguity in the multiple contemporaneous accounts of who laid out the course.  

[Terry Lavin]

my·o·pi·a
   /maɪˈoʊpiə/ Show Spelled[mahy-oh-pee-uh] Show IPA
–noun

2.
lack of foresight or discernment; obtuseness.
3.
narrow-mindedness; intolerance

Looks like those who named this club were prescient, indeed.

[Phil_the_Author]

Sorry David, but you are wrong. If this was about Tilly I would demand far more proof than has been presented so far. In fact, there are 5 different courses that have similar documentation to what you have shown that mention Tilly as their creator that I am presently researching further on because I don't believe what has been shown is enough.

You misunderstood what I meant when I called him "the" golf writer. I simply was stating that the person was writing about golf, nothing more. There was no implication that the person was the paper's "golf writer" but rather as one who was writing about it, even if it was simply in the "gossip" column.

"You say there are other accounts from the mid 1890's where "laying out" a course meant only construction with no planning element?   I'd like to see those examples, especially from the mid-1890's...  Surely you acknowledge that sometimes laying out a course and planning it were often the same step?  In fact I remember you arguing this very thing in the past!"

You obviously didn't read what I wrote very well as that is EXACTLY what I stated: "I am NOT stating that it wasn't used as you have stated, but I believe that you are simplifying the meaning by stating that it can ONLY be used as you state in the case of Myopia. It is you who is limiting its meaning by stating that you take the term as you understand it's "generally used" meaning."

Once again you are wrong when you state, "In short, I think yours is a logical fallacy:  You are equating construction and laying it as if the words had the same meaning and meant nothing else…”

I NEVER stated that and it is YOU who are demanding that the definition of the phrase is SINGULAR in use at that time. This despite the proof from the contemporaneous article that shows the exact phrase being used as I stated, that is, construction only in the case of the tennis court. If he didn’t mean it the same way for the golf course, why didn’t he use a DIFFERENT term for the tennis court such as “BUILT IT?” Especially as he mentioned the golf course AFTER first using it for the tennis court in the paragraph immediately preceding it.

I’m sorry David, you simply can’t say with anything close to being definitive that the phrase used HAS to be as you define it in this particular situation.

Nice illustration…

[DMoriarty]

How about those examples, Phil?

If any source material suggested that the course was separately planned, I'd consider it.  As the record contains no such information, reading it into the equation is unjustified.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

Once again you overspeak... "If any source material suggested that the course was separately planned, I'd consider it.  As the record contains no such information, reading it into the equation is unjustified..."

You haave no idea at all as to what information the RECORD contains, only what certain newspaper articles contain. When you examine the actual RECORD, which is the files, documents, board minutes, etc... at Myopia, THEN you can make that statemant... and only if it is true and if the club gives you permission to release it. I would find a certain amount of poetic justice in their granting you access and withholding permission from you to discuss what it contains... 

[DMoriarty]

Phillip,  I didn't over-speak in the first instance or the second.  In the first instance your interpretation made no sense whatsoever given what I had written.  Same goes here.

I am not referring to the club "records," whatever they may be, but rather I am referring to the record here in this conversation, particularly the source material thus far brought forward.  "The record" is often used to connote the information before us on which a decision will be made.  

Ironically, I used the term so as to be clear I was limiting my comments to what we have been dealing with here, so you wouldn't misunderstand me like you did above.   Naturally, you found a way to misunderstand me here as well.  In fact, your interpretations here lately have been well off the mark yet unusually obstinate, as if you were purposefully going out of your way to misinterpret what I am writing.  Why do you suppose that is?  

And Phil,  how about all those mid-1890's examples where "to lay out" a golf course meant construction only. 

[Mike Cirba]

Mike Cirba.  

I am not forgetting about the sod at all.   I am also not forgetting that reportedly  the conditions were so rough that some of the membership objected to playing on the sodded course.    


David,

God love you, but you sure have an interesting way of interpreting the English language.

The sentence in question is;

"Accordingly the ground were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut and play began around June 1st, 1894."

I'm not sure how you derived the membership complaining about poor, bumpy putting on the new greens from that sentence, because clearly the "opposition" was about something else entirely.  

It's clear that "despite the opposition, the greens were sodded and cut", with the expense that entailed, as well as the setting aside of significant club acreage and riding areas for the purpose of playing the new game.

In the preceding paragraphs, Weeks tells us more about the "opposition".

"At both The Country Club and Myopia there was opposition, not to say derision, from the horse lovers:  at Clyde Park idiots intent "on chasing a Quinine pill around a cow pasture," as Finley Peter Dunne put it, were warned not to foul up the race course; at Hamilton they were not to interfere with the Hunt!"

"It was fortunate that the man who suggested golf at Myopia was the newly elected Master of the Fox Hounds, R. M. Appleton.   Bud Appleton was the indispensable go-between, so popular that he could placate the Hunt and practical enough not to minimize the difficulties.   When the snows melted in the spring of 1894, Appleton, with two fellow members, "Squire" Merrill, and A. P. Gardner, footed it over the Club acres, spotting the tees and pacing off the distance to provisional greens, probably marking them with pegs.  The opponents had protested that the ground was rough and the soil thin, both of which in part were true."

Later he writes;

"The feeling that golf was an unworthy intrusion was widespread and would not subside for years;   the horsey members kept to one part of the Club and the golfers in their plus fours to another.   A member of the Hunt, when asked if they really had a golf course at Myopia, replied: "I believe some do play a game of that name around here".

Like most people trying to stop something they don't agree with, the "opponents" of golf at Myopia seem to have objected to the game out of principle, and apparently found any reason to argue against it.

Thankfully, they didn't hold sway.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba, Unless you have some sources for all that Weeks speculation, I am not interested.   Historical analysis doesn't mean just chirping someone else's book, especially if that book doesn't provide much of any support for its claims.

I've seen the quote.   Either way you read it, it looks as if the sod was laid at the last minute.  

[Tom MacWood]

David,

Why appoint a committee at all then...why not just wait for Campbell to do his ten-day soup-to-nuts, instant-presto golf course gig?  

But since they DID assign a committee, what "measures" do you think they were assigned to take?

To just go to market and buy some sheep?  

Mike
That is what clubs do, they appoint committees...field sport committees, house committees, golf committees, tennis committees, social committees, etc. TCC appointed Arthur Hunnewell, Laurence Curtis and Robert Bacon to their golf committee and they ultimately hired Willie Campbell. Essex County's committee was TJ Coolidge, WE Putnam and Lewis Sargent and they also secured Campbell. WB Thomas, the man who brought Campbell to America, was on ECC's house committee. He was also a member at Myopia.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

What about that statement leads you to conclude the "sod was laid at the last minute"?

Tom MacWood,

Where is any record that Myopia "hired Campbell"?

My understanding is that he was "hired" by TCC and Essex in a shared arrangement.

Myopia was not part of that paid arrangement, was it?

By the way Tom...do you know when Macdonald's original solicitation agreement letter went out to the potential NGLA Founders?    Was it before or after he found the property next to Shinny?

Thanks

[Tom MacWood]

When trying to figure out who did what in golf architect IMO it is important to put it into historical perspective. When looking at the 1890s you can not project what was going on in the 1900s or 1910s or 1920s. The very formative 1890s were completely different from the 1910s. When I read someone laid out a golf course in the mid-1890s that tells me he designed and built the course. And one should not confuse what design and built meant in 1894 with design and built meant in 1914 or 1924. There was very little construction, which is why courses were developed in days and weeks, not months or years, and design entailed finding good natural holes. Some architects today may say that finding good natural golf holes in a week is unsophisticated by today's standards. I disagree.

[Tom MacWood]

David,

What about that statement leads you to conclude the "sod was laid at the last minute"?

Tom MacWood,

Where is any record that Myopia "hired Campbell"?

My understanding is that he was "hired" by TCC and Essex in a shared arrangement.

Myopia was not part of that paid arrangement, was it?

By the way Tom...do you know when Macdonald's original solicitation agreement letter went out to the potential NGLA Founders?    Was it before or after he found the property next to Shinny?

Thanks

Mike
Apples and oranges, why compare the first year or two of American golf to something over a decade later? That is like comparing the Wright brothers (1903) to the developments in airplanes during WWI.

I assume Campbell did not work for free, laying out Myopia or as their professional in 1896. Don't you think he was probably hired?

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

First of all, even if you are limiting your uswe of the word "record" to what has been discussed on this thread, again I say that you overspeak and are incorrect. There have been far too many different articles taht refer to things ho did what and when to draw a definitive conclusion that Campbell did anything more than possibly be involved in the construction of the course. As far as being the designer/router, that too is not conclusive.

Secondly, I have no intention of satisfying you by posting any articles on the various uses of the term "laid out" in 1890's American golf course architecture. Choose to give credence to my statement or not, it changes nothing as to how it has been used on this thread in "contemporaneous" newspaper reports, which is just as I have stated.

[Tom MacWood]

Secondly, I have no intention of satisfying you by posting any articles on the various uses of the term "laid out" in 1890's American golf course architecture. Choose to give credence to my statement or not, it changes nothing as to how it has been used on this thread in "contemporaneous" newspaper reports, which is just as I have stated.

Why not? It shouldn't be that difficult. How many golf courses were there in America in 1894?

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
By the way he did not ask you to find examples of the term 'laid out' in 1894 or before, I believe he asked you to come up with examples of courses that were designed by someone and built by someone else during that period. With your knowledge of early American golf architecture that should not be difficult.

[DMoriarty]

David,

What about that statement leads you to conclude the "sod was laid at the last minute"?

Because the conditions were so rough at the time of the opening tournament that some members did thought that they  should not even play over the course as it was.   Either they laid the sod to appease those members, or they had already laid the sod and the conditions were still too rough. Had they laid sod at the beginning of spring then the course wouldn't have been rough at the opening tournament.

Besides, there are multiple accounts indicating that as of mid-May they had not laid out the course yet. Surely they didn't sod the greens before they laid out the course, did they?   That'd been a real trick!

You seem to want AM&G to have sodded the greens sometime earlier.   If they had, then what of the multiple reports indicating that the course had not yet been laid out as of mid-May?   And what was left for Campbell?  Carrying their bags?  

[Tom MacWood]

David M,

Are you sure that those 3 articles make it a fact? It might be true and I agree that it looks like those are the only contemporary "proof" but it seems like calling it a "fact' seems too strong to me. Just my opinion.

Sean
There are three contemporaneous reports from three separate sources that say Campbell laid out the course. Kevin Lynch referred to the idea that Campbell laid out the course as a theory. Would you say the proof elevates it above theory?

[DMoriarty]

David,

First of all, even if you are limiting your uswe of the word "record" to what has been discussed on this thread, again I say that you overspeak and are incorrect. There have been far too many different articles taht refer to things ho did what and when to draw a definitive conclusion that Campbell did anything more than possibly be involved in the construction of the course. As far as being the designer/router, that too is not conclusive.

What do you mean "if" I am limiting my use of the word.   You aren't implying I am a liar, are you?  

As for your third allegation that I have "over-spoke," more nonsense. I wrote that there is no contemporaneous source material presented here which suggests that the course was separately planned.  So far as I know that is accurate.

Where are these "many different articles" which suggest that someone other than Campbell planned the course?    I am aware of none.

Secondly, I have no intention of satisfying you by posting any articles on the various uses of the term "laid out" in 1890's American golf course architecture. Choose to give credence to my statement or not, it changes nothing as to how it has been used on this thread in "contemporaneous" newspaper reports, which is just as I have stated.

Okay.  I choose to give your claim very little credence.   If you aren't willing to back up your claims, then what is your purpose here?  To lecture us and expect us to take your word for it?  

What courses during this period were planned by one person and "laid out" by another.   I am not aware of any.  


[/quote]

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

No David, I am not calling you a liar and I apologize for my poor choice of word. I actually meant that I accept what you stated.

As far as my "third allegation" is concerned, your use the term "So far as I know" shows two things. First that you don't accept the other articles, such as the one Mike Cirba posted above on this page, which calls into question your conclusion. It also shows that you are close-minded toward considering anything other than what you have posted.

As a result, your using the terms "that I am aware of" and "I am aware of none" doesn't make what you state as fact.

I am willing to back up my claims. Your absolute inability to even consider the example already shown on this thread where the same writer used the same term "Laid out" three sentences apart in the same article, once about a tennis court and the other about a golf course, shows that you are absolutely and completely close-minded to anything shown to you on the subject. I'm sorry, but a reasonable person could admit that the example shown might be understood as I contend. Mind you, understood, not agrees with me, just understood. You won't even do that. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to provide you with anything else. If you showed any true willingness to give consideration to others thoughts, I would gladly produce them. Since you don't I won't waste my time.

So David, consider this just some more annoying blather, but you really should ask yourself what YOU are doing on here as you absolutely don't want to discuss any of this...

[DMoriarty]

"So far as I know" is another one of those qualifiers I put in to remind people like you that I am only talking about things within my scope of knowledge.  That should be obvious to you and everyone else, but nonetheless you have mistakenly accused me otherwise three times so far this evening alone.

First that you don't accept the other articles, such as the one Mike Cirba posted above on this page, which calls into question your conclusion. It also shows that you are close-minded toward considering anything other than what you have posted.

The article Mike Cirba posted said that Appleton, Merrill, and Burnham were appointed to a committee charged with bringing golf to Myopia.  Surely this cannot be the sum total of the "many articles" that support your theory that someone else planned the course?    If so, why even bother?

As a result, your using the terms "that I am aware of" and "I am aware of none" doesn't make what you state as fact

See above.

I

am willing to back up my claims. Your absolute inability to even consider the example already shown on this thread where the same writer used the same term "Laid out" three sentences apart in the same article, once about a tennis court and the other about a golf course, shows that you are absolutely and completely close-minded to anything shown to you on the subject. I'm sorry, but a reasonable person could admit that the example shown might be understood as I contend. Mind you, understood, not agrees with me, just understood. You won't even do that. Therefore there is absolutely no reason to provide you with anything else. If you showed any true willingness to give consideration to others thoughts, I would gladly produce them. Since you don't I won't waste my time.

More nonsense.   I not only considered the "tennis" example, I explained to you why I think it is inapt.  Also, I have said repeatedly on this thread and others that some golf courses were planned and "laid out" by different people.   Merion - where the Board decided to lay out the course according to the plan that CBM had chosen - is a perfect example.  There is just no evidence of it here.

Plus, I am unaware of any such examples or usage this early.  You claimed there were plenty of examples - golf examples, not tennis examples, so let's have them.   What are your examples from the 1890's?

So David, consider this just some more annoying blather, but you really should ask yourself what YOU are doing on here as you absolutely don't want to discuss any of this...

Huh? I have discussed it, Phillip.  You just keep coming back to this silly tennis example, beating the same dead horse, as if laying out a tennis court and laying out a golf course were the exact same thing.    

Your claims are support are unsupportable on this one Phil.  You said there were plenty of articles indicating that the course may have been planned by someone else.  There are not.   You claimed you knew of plenty of GOLF examples during this era of courses being planned and laid out separately.  You cannot even come up with even one.  

Perhaps you should quit accusing me of "over-speaking" and take a look at yourself.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

I'm sure you'll be thankful as these will be my last words. Don't you think its about time that YOU contacted Myopia and sought permission to research their history? One would think with your driving ambition to uncover the "truth" that you would have by now... By the way, nice job of trying to twist what I ACTUALLY said...

[DMoriarty]

Good Luck Phillip.

If you ever run into any of those many articles you think indicate that the planning was done seperately, let us know. Same goes for all those 1890's golf courses where the planning and lay out were supposedly done by seperate entities.

[Mike Cirba]

Because the conditions were so rough at the time of the opening tournament that some members did thought that they  should not even play over the course as it was.   Either they laid the sod to appease those members, or they had already laid the sod and the conditions were still too rough. Had they laid sod at the beginning of spring then the course wouldn't have been rough at the opening tournament.

Besides, there are multiple accounts indicating that as of mid-May they had not laid out the course yet. Surely they didn't sod the greens before they laid out the course, did they?   That'd been a real trick!

Now David...that is just a silly interpretation of the "objections" to golf at Myopia.   No one was forcing anyone to play golf under opening day conditions, yet S. Dacre Bush tells us that there were about twenty-five entries anyway.    Earlier in the thread I posted the box scores if you want to see who played.

But, I'm sure you'll persist in reading it however you choose.

As far as multiple accounts, you should simply say "multiple newspapers".   They read virtually verbatim, and none of them have an identified author, as they appear in respective gossip columns in different papers.

I'm still trying to figure out if it was simply the same person writing for different rags or they were simply plagiarizing from each other.

Do we have any idea whatsoever, really, what they even thought the term "laid out' meant?   After all, they were brand new like everyone else to the game, and made almost ridiculous and obvious mistakes in their articles, such as "two links".    I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they thought the term meant laying out tee markers, cutting holes, inserting some type of flags, or perhaps just digging up some artificial bunkers or mounds.    Or, probably more likely, they had not a clue what the game even involved, much less course architecture.


Tom MacWood,

Can you tell us at what point in golf architecture history the term "laid out", or "lay out" when written in news accounts began to simply mean construction to someone else's plans, divorcing it from the planning stage? 

Perhaps you can share a date when you think this transition happened?   1900?   1910??  1920??   In modern times?

You and David seem to want to make the term mean whatever you want it to mean at different points, leading to stark logical inconsistencies that trip up both your arguments when examples (like Macdonald at NGLA) are given that belie your convenient use of terminology.

I'm not comparing NGLA to Myopia a decade prior.   I'm comparing use of terms and what people meant when they used them.

Do you know when the Founders Letter seeking solicitations for NGLA was sent out?   Thanks.

[Tom MacWood]

The first examples I've seen are around the turn of the century in the UK. I cannot think of the earliest example I've seen in the US, probably around 1910. American golf architectural development ran about decade behind, give or take, Britain.

Perhaps you can help Phil. Are you aware of any golf courses in America, circa 1894, that were designed by one person and built by another?

[DMoriarty]

Now David...that is just a silly interpretation of the "objections" to golf at Myopia.   No one was forcing anyone to play golf under opening day conditions, yet S. Dacre Bush tells us that there were about twenty-five entries anyway.    Earlier in the thread I posted the box scores if you want to see who played.

But, I'm sure you'll persist in reading it however you choose.

Huh?   It is not my "silly interpretation," it is Bush's.  The clause reads: ". . . and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough . . . ."   How you can read this as anything but opposition because the ground was so rough is beyond me.      There is nothing about a general opposition to golf at Myopia; you just read that in because it it fits with the point you want to try and make.  Now that is "silly."

As far as multiple accounts, you should simply say "multiple newspapers".   They read virtually verbatim, and none of them have an identified author, as they appear in respective gossip columns in different papers.

I'm still trying to figure out if it was simply the same person writing for different rags or they were simply plagiarizing from each other.

More likely the same information was sent to each paper by the person connected to the club who was providing these columns with such information.   As I have said, these columns were like bulletin boards to pass on information, make announcements, etc.

Do we have any idea whatsoever, really, what they even thought the term "laid out' meant?

Whoever sourced the information in that article I keep posting obviously knew what he was talking about.  Even you must realize this.

You and David seem to want to make the term mean whatever you want it to mean at different points, leading to stark logical inconsistencies that trip up both your arguments when examples (like Macdonald at NGLA) are given that belie your convenient use of terminology.

My use of the phrase has remained consistent. One has to understand the evolution of golf course architecture to understand how the term was used. In contrast, we have your flip-flopping on the term between here and Merion.  

I'm not comparing NGLA to Myopia a decade prior.   I'm comparing use of terms and what people meant when they used them.

Of course you are comparing NGLA to Myopia.  That is how desperate your argument has become. The terms were used differently because they were being used to describe very different types of projects.  Your attempts to muddy the water as opposed to getting at a real understanding are getting very old.

Do you know when the Founders Letter seeking solicitations for NGLA was sent out?   Thanks.

Do you think this was a mass mailing or something?  CBM wrote the Agreement in 1904.  He acquired an option on the land eventually purchased in 1906.  For all your interest in NGLA and early golf course architecture in America, you'd think that by now you'd have bothered to read CBM's book.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()