Willie Campbell & Myopia

[Kevin Lynch]

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?

At the risk of being called stupid again, suppose Phil does not find any courses circa 1894 that were designed by one person and built by another.

What logical extension would you make from that?  Would that honestly prove anything?

Turning that line of questioning around, how about this?  When was the first example you find of a separate designer / builder in America?  Once you answer that, explain to me why Myopia couldn't have been the first. 

Why couldn't Squire & Co have been one of the first to try and lay down a rough routing on their own (e.g. pegs in ground) and then said "hey, perhaps this famous professional could make some suggestions / revisions while helping us put it in the ground."   

In other words, your line of questioning would seem to imply that the "first" of anything is highly improbable because there was no example of it before.

Again, please understand that I'm not necessarily refuting your theory that Campbell "designed and built" Myopia (I'm staying as far away from the term "laid out" as possible for fear of further attack for confusing widely accepted FACT with debated THEORY).  I'm just challenging what logical conclusion you may draw from Phil not answering your question to your satisfaction. 

With that, I'll leave in my peaceful acceptance of "I'm not positive what happened but was happy to learn something." 

Peace.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kevin,

I am not going to address Myopia specifically, but your question would be a good one to understand more about.

TMac, David, and others have shown us that there were (from memory) 907 courses in America by 1900, and I think all were built after 1890.

They are right in that there were no formal contractors in those days.  By the time Merion was built in 1910, a guy named Pickering apparently had an ongoing golf construction biz, and guys like American Park Builders in Chicago weren't far behind.

In 1890-1900, I am pretty sure that the organizers/founders/clubs probably hired local labor to build courses.  If and where Willie Campbell and other pros were hired to design the course, most were reported to stay a day and put pegs in the ground, perhaps give some general instructions, etc.  Whoever was going to be the greenskeeper built the course.

To the degree that Scots designed the courses before Myopia, I would say there probably were instances of one person designing and others building, but in many ways its a technical distinction.  As a fledgling industry/field, there was no formal training in golf construction, no standard contracts and no standard method developed.  It started to standardize after 1910 or so, as TMac suggests, but I think throughout that era, we could, if we dug, find a lot of different ways that those courses were built, given how little work actually went into them, as TMac also tells us.

There is some irony in the fact that David is arguing that WC would be expected to build the course at Myopia, but earlier argued vehemently that this sort of thing would be just table scraps, unless he had also spent that extra day routing it.  While that may be true, he may have been happy to take the money to implement the clubs routing, or may have made a suggestion to change it and then built it, since he was so new to the country.

But of course, when we say things like that, its speculation.  When DM says what he says, its fact.

To address Myopia, I have to concur with Mike Cirba that the Weeks report makes it clear that there was big opposition to golf.  David is way off base on that particular point.

[DMoriarty]

Kevin,

The verb "to lay out" has been hotly debated here for years now.  I have argued that the application of the verb evolved as golf course design evolved, and that while early on the term "to lay out" encompassed planning a course because most planning was done on the ground.   For example, if AM&G had really staked out the course in March, then they would have already "laid it out" or placed it on the ground, they would have also planned it even though they were planning on the ground.   Likewise, for those visiting designers who didn't spend much time on a project, they generally walked around the property and marked the course off on the ground, and at this point the course would have been "laid out" whether or not it was quite ready for play.   

The confusion generally came in later, when golf was more established and golf courses generally became more complicated and construction dependent.   Preparing the course for play became much more time consuming and construction dependent; it wasn't as simple as just marking off a course on the ground like one might mark of a course for a cross country foot race.  At this point it became more common for plans to be drawn up on paper, sometimes even before the land was secured.  It was with these projects where  "to plan" emerged out of "to lay out" and became more of an independent action.   "To lay out" still meant to place or arrange on the ground, but with these projects the arrangement and placement was first determined on paper.   But even with these projects the person who drew up the plans was usually the person who arranged the course on the ground.

[We have to be careful with generalizing too much, because there were some early examples where the professional may have drawn up a plan before the course was "laid out" on the ground.   I am not certain, but I suspect that Willie Dunn may have used written plans for his work, but Dunn was also involved in laying the course out on the ground at his projects, a few of which were major undertakings.   On the other hand, I am unaware of Campbell having worked off a written plan.]

So while obviously the early date makes a difference, key to understanding how the verb is used is to look at how the project was created.  The date helps there, but the nature of the project is also very important.    For example, Myopia was a rudimentary course using the features already there (such as walls, a pond, trees, etc.) as hazards.  All that was reportedly done is that the areas chosen for greens were sodded, and maybe areas were flattened for tees.  Otherwise it was very much like one might mark off a course for a cross country foot race or horse race. 

In the case of Myopia, we cannot just assume that the course was planned separately then laid out on the ground.   That was definitely not the norm for that type of project or the norm at that time.  And it was not Campbell's norm either.  And it was not even the norm of the members, as many of them also belonged to clubs were Campbell laid out their courses as well.   More importantly, there is nothing in the record even suggesting this.  More than that, even the Weeks account contradicts this, as he describes AM&G arranging the course ON THE GROUND.  In other words, "laying it out."   

As for the first instance in America of one person planning a course and another laying it out pursuant to those plans, I am not sure, but think that it was most likely around a decade later.  The indications I have seen are really just the opposite scenario as here.   There are accounts from mid decade 1900 where a golf professional (sometimes not even named) was brought in to advise about the course, and then the committee "laid it out" on the ground.   Then, as we approach 1910, it became more common.   

The real irony here is that until the Myopia conversation Jeff Brauer and Mike Cirba have long mocked my understanding of the verb, and have flipped over to my definition here opportunistically, because it suits their purposes.
______________________________________

Jeff Brauer,

Is there a purpose to your bitter and petty little comments other than to make yourself feel good?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I am sorry I couldn't resist one little comment in that post, but still believe most of the differences on these types of threads come mostly from your insistence that your definition or interpretation of words and their meanings should be the controlling aspect without ever admitting that your definition could be wrong.

I have read your post above, and find it a well reasoned attempt to define lay out, but can still question its consistent useage by clubs, Scot pros, and newspapers.  While you have taken great care to research and define that meaning in 2010, I doubt all those who used it 100-115 years ago really did, and so confusion THEN could reign, even if you have mentally sorted it out now.  There were close to 1000 American courses built in that period of evolving process and there is no way, IMHO, that all that fit any standardized process, even though many were similar.

To be honest, the short version is I have never mocked your understanding of the verb, but have questioned the absolute certainty you have with your understanding, which some of us simply don't share.  And, I believe you have misinterpreted the degree of opposition to golf at Myopia, based on Weeks.  He makes it clear it was strong, but I see no point in debating whether you or Mike is closer to correct in how strong it was.  It was real.

Your last post, except your comment to me, was a good one.  I would love to know more and see any examples of early routing plans anywhere.  Most seem to be produced after the coruse is open for newspaper articles, or whatever.  Even the ones at Myopia for the long nine and expansion to 18 look to be reproduced after the fact, perhaps in conjunction with the Opens.  Do you think that is the case?

[DMoriarty]

Whatever Jeff.  

You can take or leave my understanding of the way these terms are used, and apparently do so as it suits your rhetorical needs.  As you have said, this is all just a game for you anyway.

As for Weeks, you and Mike can lean on Weeks all you want about all this opposition to golf at Myopia.  But let's not pretend that is historical analysis.  There may have been opposition, I don't know.   Neither do you, though, as you are just believing what Weeks tells you.   I am interested in historical analysis, so unless you have source material addressing the point there is no use discussing it with you.  

Besides, my comments about "opposition" regarded a single quote which Mike misread, casting it as about opposition to golf, as opposed to opposition to playing on the course in its rough condition.   The quote leaves no doubt it was the latter.  

[Kevin Lynch]

The real irony here is that until the Myopia conversation Jeff Brauer and Mike Cirba have long mocked my understanding of the verb, and have flipped over to my definition here opportunistically, because it suits their purposes.

David,

Overall, I appreciated your thoughts on the evolution of the verb.  That's constructive information, regardless of whether or not you believe the "newspaper writer" viewed it the same way.
_________

As for irony of changing viewpoints, I'm not going to get into the whole Merion thing.  However, when I spent last evening looking at some old Burbeck / Tilly threads, I was struck by how different the tone of that discussion went, with TEPaul actually serving as the "moderating voice" encouraging people to keep an open mind in challenging "accepted history."  It was funny to see the "evolution" of thought processes between 2002 and today among participants in these architectural debates.

[DMoriarty]

Overall, I appreciated your thoughts on the evolution of the verb.  That's constructive information, regardless of whether or not you believe the "newspaper writer" viewed it the same way.

We rarely think of the meaning of words as we use them, and we rarely have to consider the context because we are already and inescapably embedded in that context.  We just use words as they fit.  There was little understanding of "designing" a golf course as we think of it.  They were just having some guy lay out a course on the ground so they could try this new game.  

Also, in this case, the verb most likely came from the same person who provided the rest of the information contained in those blurbs.  And that person sure seems to have known what he or she was talking about.      
_________

As for irony of changing viewpoints, I'm not going to get into the whole Merion thing.  However, when I spent last evening looking at some old Burbeck / Tilly threads, I was struck by how different the tone of that discussion went, with TEPaul actually serving as the "moderating voice" encouraging people to keep an open mind in challenging "accepted history."  It was funny to see the "evolution" of thought processes between 2002 and today among participants in these architectural debates.

I don't recall being involved in that discussion, and have generally always tried to avoid that issue so as to avoid stirring up controversy.   Obviously, I have done a real good job of that.  

I think if you reviewed all these threads over the years, you will find that the standards that TomM and I are held to are much, much different than the standards that anyone else around here has ever been held to.   That is ironic because compared to most, our opinions are much more thoroughly researched and have proven time and again to be accurate. 

[Tom MacWood]

Kevin
Logically there are reasons why no examples exist, because that process would not become a reality for another decade.

According James Lee author of Golf in America (1895) there were approximately 75 golf courses in America in 1895. The majority of these golf courses were crude by the standards of 1900s much less the standards of today. To use the term 'design' to describe what was going on in 1894 or 1895 displays a certain level of ignorance. Golf courses were laid out in matter of days, not weeks or months, and laid out referred to routing a golf course and preparing it for play (i.e. cutting holes). Nothing was put on paper, and hazards were an after thought. Unfortunately there are some golf architects today who believe what Campbell (and others) were doing in 1894, routing a golf course utilizing the natural features of the ground, was not very sophisticated or impressive, and didn't require much skill. I disagree.

It should also be noted by modern standards these courses were maintained in very crude manor, greens, tees, fairways were not descernably different. The tee was the starting point; the green was end point or hole; the fairway was the area between point A and point B; and the next tee was a few club lengths from the previous hole.

I suppose it is possible the golfing novices Squire & Co were a decade ahead of their time, and were the first in the world to design a golf course and have one of the most accomplished golfers and golf architects in the world (Campbell) build it according to their plan. Weeks never suggested that is what happened, and neither did May. You and Phil may be the only people who seriously believe that is what happened or could have happened. Phil also believes a cleaning lady at a bicycle shop in Dayton was responsible for the first airplane.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Finally, the definitive word on this subject, that we can all agree 100% with: 

 "Whatever."  

[Terry Lavin]

"I have never mocked your understanding of the verb."

Wow.  Is this all that's left here?  A debate about semantics and choice of words?  Parsing?

You guys must've loved Bill Clinton's handling of the Lewinsky allegations, because this is one of the great examples of linguistic parsing that I've ever seen.

I guess it depends on the meaning of ____________.

I'd look away, but a train wreck is compelling viewing.

[Phil_the_Author]

"Phil also believes a cleaning lady at a bicycle shop in Dayton was responsible for the first airplane."

Darn it Tom, and I was just getting ready to announce it! What you didn't say is that her last name was Macwood...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Terry,

I have seen train wrecks, and they also seem to unfold in slow motion......

To your original question, with David involved, I have long contended that too many of his theories have come from exactly that - a detailed parsing of words, selection of sources to be trusted, etc.  I know he will disagree, but for me, and because of at least the example you list, but also my distrust of lawyers in general (and DM is a non practicing attorney) has always made me a bit suspect of his work.

That may very well be a reflection on my preconcieved bias over David's work and I openly admit that.

[Joe Bausch]

How about some real data I've unearthed.  (I now re-set the over-under on the pages of this thread at 115!).

I have the Early Myopia book by Allan Forbes.  It was published in 1942.  As far as I can tell from a quick browse through it, there is not a single mention about the golf course.  It is basically about fox hunts and stuff like that.

But, here is the Foreword:

     The information presented here... [is] now contained in the six large volumes in the Myopia club house.

     The material was collected for the reason that the early run book has been lost or mislaid.  Much data was found in the Boston newspapers through the help and kindness of officials of the Boston Public Library and other suburban libraries.

     This seems and appropriate opportunity to thank the many persons who have helped in the collection of so much material, which it is hoped will be of interest to past, present and future members of the Myopia Club.

     This volume is presented with the compliments of the author.

Allan Forbes
1942

[DMoriarty]

Imagine that.  Myopia determining its history using early newspaper accounts.

Can you tell the period covered by the missing run book?

______________________

Jeff Brauer, 

Openly admitting you have a bias against what I write but then continuing on with your bias unchecked is about like you apologizing on the other thread,but then continuing on doing the same things.  Empty words, perhaps only making things worse.
   
Your inability to take my words at face value says much more about you than it does me.

[Phil_the_Author]

Joe,

I swear that you really enjoy giving a list of chemicals to your students in hopes that they will blow up the lab... and smile the entire time as you wait...  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

If people were playing on courses cruder than cow pastures, then why would anyone object to putting on sod, whatever its maturity.

Its a very silly interpretation you have of a very unambiguous sentence. 

No offense, but the opposition was to buying, building, laying, cutting and opening that portion of the property for golfing purposes.

Joe,

Wonder what year(s) the earliest Run Book(s) are/were missing from?

Any clue what the six volumes entail?

[DMoriarty]

David,

If people were playing on courses cruder than cow pastures, then why would anyone object to putting on sod, whatever its maturity.

Its a very silly interpretation you have of a very unambiguous sentence.  

Mike, can you read?  If so I refer you to the highlighted portion of the quote below:

"Accordingly the grounds 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."

Pay particular attention to the clause, set off from the rest by commas, reading:

 " . . . IN OPPOSITION FROM A NUMBER OF MEMBERS BECAUSE THE GROUND WAS SO ROUGH . . ."

You think this "very unambiguously" meant that they were opposed to golf coming to Myopia at all?  And that it is "very silly" of me to think that they were objecting to golfing on the rough grounds?  

Do you know what a tell is?   Well, your tell is hyperbole and definiteness.  Whenever you are being unreasonable, or bluffing, you try to mask it with words like "very silly" and "very unambiguous."    Remember how you described that newspaper articles as full of mistakes and equivalent to Charmin?  That is another good example of you bluffing.  

They weren't objecting to laying sod, they were objecting to playing on the course before it was ready.  Either the sod wasn't ready or they put on sod at the last minute to try and mollify the objecting members.

[Joe Bausch]

If only just begun to look through the book in more detail.  But it is clear that for many years Forbes is relying upon information from newspapers.

[Mike Cirba]

Joe,

Interesting that the Weeks book doesn't mention the Run Book missing...wonder if it was found by 1975?

Weeks also uses some newspaper sources, but also mentions direct quotes from the Run Book during those years.

Wouldn't it be funny/ironic if the AMG attribution came from a news source? 
I wonder what May used and where Stoddard and the club manager pointed him to as source material?

[Tom MacWood]

"Phil also believes a cleaning lady at a bicycle shop in Dayton was responsible for the first airplane."

Darn it Tom, and I was just getting ready to announce it! What you didn't say is that her last name was Macwood...

Sorry, there were no MacWoods living in Ohio in 1903, they were all in the NY/NJ area, however my grandfather was a chauffeur for Albert Einstein among others, so you might want to follow up on that lead. 

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

Funny.  I was going to post, ironically, that they must have found the Run Book because TEPaul has told us that he as read it and claimed to know many details from this period because of it.  But I thought better of it.   Now, your reality is my joke.

What years are the quotes from the Run Book in the Weeks book?   The Bush quote isn't in the "Run Book."  

Someone mentioned that the Weeks book doesn't have the early club champions, except for 1895 and 1896, but those two years were listed in the Abbot book.  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Which comes first; the objections or the sodding and cutting?

It says that despite the objections, nine greens were sodded and cut....now how in heavens name could that refer to bumpy putting?

Ay yi yi...

[Mike Cirba]

David,

The quotes from the Run Book refer to certain events during the period, such as the Opening tourney or July 4th tourney...not at home right now and don't recall which specifically.  I'll look it up and post later if its still an open question.

[PThomas]

"Wow.  Is this all that's left here?  A debate about semantics and choice of words?  Parsing?

You guys must've loved Bill Clinton's handling of the Lewinsky allegations, because this is one of the great examples of linguistic parsing that I've ever seen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

One of the reasons I get frustrated and my tone changes with you is that I really see very little effort from you at trying to be reasonable.  If you don't like some piece of information, you go out of your way to minimize it, mud it up, or even misrepresent it.    This is just the latest example.  

The one thing the quote DOES NOT refer to is a general opposition to golf at Myopia.  The opposition from a number of members was  "because the ground was so rough."  Yet you still try to misrepresent this as being about general opposition to Myopia, and even claim that my disagreement is "very silly" and your interpretation "unambiguous."  

Unfortunately, it seems that  you are playing rhetorical games.   I can't go on indefinitely pretending to be having a reasonable conversation with people who are obviously not so inclined.  The quote is very sloppy and not easy to understand, but obviously you aren't even trying.  Rather you are going out of your way to obfuscate the meaning!

Let's go through it again, starting with what is most obvious:  Some members were opposed to something "because the ground was so rough."  So the question is, to what were they opposed?  On this issue you again play dumb, re-quoting the next clause but leaving out the part that might help us make some sense out of what Bush said:  . . . nine greens were sodded and cut and play began around June 1, 1894.   Part of the membership opposed something because the conditions were too rough.  Can we please try to think in terms of what makes sense, as opposed to intentionally twisting it so it doesn't make sense?    Let's break it down by multiple choice.  Which of the following makes the most sense:

A)  Because the ground was so rough, some of the the membership was opposed to sodding the greens.
B)  Because the ground was so rough, some of the the membership was opposed to cutting the greens.
C)  Because the ground was so rough, some of the the membership was opposed to opening the course for play.

Seriously, Mike, which one of these makes the most sense?   Which one does NOT render the entire clause absurd?  

Which comes first; the objections or the sodding and cutting?

I don't know because it does not say.  It could be that they laid the sod at the last minute to quell the opposition to opening the course, or it could be that they laid the sod late in the game and that some of he membership were opposed to playing on it until matured and smoothed out.

It says that despite the objections, nine greens were sodded and cut....now how in heavens name could that refer to bumpy putting?

This would be true had the sodded when you think they sodded.    But if they had just sodded, then the greens would be quite rough, and arguably not ready for play.  That is what you guys have been arguing, isn't it?

Ay yi yi...

Another tell.