Willie Campbell & Myopia

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I'm sorry, but I'm sincere and I believe it's you who is missing the meaning of the sentence.

I think your zeal to try and make it seem like it was sodded right before opening isn't allowing you to read it correctly, and you're missing the point.

The meaning is this;  members objected to sodding greens because the ground was too rough and the soil was too thin.  

Weeks tells us that in the preceding paragraph;  

"The opponents had protested that the ground was rough and the soil thin, both of which in part were true."

They weren't objecting to playing on the golf course.   Dacre Bush tells us that "...the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut..."

The members, likely some of the same who objected to the game on principle, now didn't want to spend club monies and time and energies on this new game so they likely said, "ahh...the ground is too rocky and the soil is too thin...it's a waste of money on this foolishness.".    More importantly, they likely also didn't want to dedicate any portion of their extensive land holdings to this nonsense.  

The previous chapter talked about The Hunt, and how the members would ride over large expanses.  

"With the country still so open, with the contiguous estates of those members devoted to hunting, and particularly with the extensive range of Bradley Palmer's "Willowdale" and of Appleton's own farms at his disposal, the Master had plenty of scope for both fox hunting and the drag.   In 1901, Appleton was succeeded by George S. Mandell, and for the next ten years the new Master was concerned with opening up new country, such as the Beach Run over Sagamore Hill and the two-horse runs at West..."

In answer to your other question, the Weeks book contains quotes, purportedly from the Run Book, outlining Leeds tournament victory in 1894 and an account of a team match at Newport in 1896, both of which I've previously quoted here.

Let's make a deal, David...

I won't ask any more questions about NGLA's origins before first reading Macdonald's 1920s account which I ordered yesterday, and how about you not telling us any further what's in the Week's book you haven't read.    I'm pretty sure someone would be happy to scan the relevant pages and get you a copy.

I'm tired of typing.   Thanks.

[Mike Cirba]

The "Leeds Scrapbook" is also directly quoted in the Weeks book, and very interestingly so.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

Weeks again?  You do understand that without basis Weeks' opinion has nothing to do with historical analysis, don't you? Weeks wasn't there.   He is obviously dealing with extremely limited sources.  And it isn't even clear that he understood what he was looking at.   For example, he calls Bush the Club Secretary and claims Bush's reminiscences - written many years later - are Board records!

Likewise, I recall the mention of the Newport Tournament and the reference again to club records.  My thought when it was posted was that it read much more like reminiscences any sort of administrative record which which I am familiar.  My guess is that was from the same source as the other information, Bush's reminiscences, which Weeks mistakenly thought some version of the administrative record.

Likewise, as I recall, the information thus far presented about the first tournament also came from Bush's reminiscences.

I am thoroughly unconvinced that Weeks even had the "Run Book."  Surely if he had the "Run Book" you could do better than these two references and a bunch of other stuff that was printed in the newspapers.

As for your "deal,"no way.   This thread is about Myopia.  You should quit interrupting it with your strange theories about NGLA because of that alone.  I am glad that you are finally getting around to taking a look at the CBM's readily available book, though.   Given that it is readily available and one of the most important books on the origins and evolution of golf in America, I'd have thought you would have read it years ago, but I guess not.

By the way, it is plenty ironic that you have repeatedly scolded me for not going to the clubs or reading their histories, yet you have been spouting off about NGLA for years - completely rewriting their histories - without even bothering to read CBM's account of what happened at NGLA.  I got my copy at a Barnes and Nobles for God's sake, so it is not as if the book is rare or hard to find!  And why haven't you taken all your ideas to NGLA before shilling them here?   After all, that is what you demand of me.  Why the double standard?  Other than hypocrisy, I mean.  

I'd be glad to take a look at the Myopia book but it is unfortunately not readily available.  I'd love for someone to forward me digitized copies, but I won't hold my breath.  I will just keep asking questions about it, but only on threads where it is relevant.

The "Leeds Scrapbook" is also directly quoted in the Weeks book, and very interestingly so.

You are getting more and more like your mentor by the day, and that is NOT a compliment.  If you've got something to say about the "quotes" from the Leeds Scrapbook, then let's hear it, otherwise quit playing games with the source material.

------------------------------------------------

Joe Bausch,

Did Forbes have the Run Book covering 1894?  

Thanks.  

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

After reading what you just posted to Mike I simply have to ask you how you can say about the Weeks Scrapbook that "You do understand that without basis Weeks' opinion has nothing to do with historical analysis, don't you?" and then because Mike doesn't quote from it when he mentions it, you now refer to it as "If you've got something to say about the "quotes" from the Leeds Scrapbook, then let's hear it, otherwise quit playing games with the source material."

How can something that has "nothing to do with historical analysis" actually be "source material?"
 

[Mike Cirba]

David,

You wrote all of that instead of simply just saying, "Mike,  you're right...I read that statement about the rough grounds incorrectly, and I see your point."?  

Even if you wrote your other criticisms after that, it would help to advance the discussion.

I've had George and Gib's book on Macdonald for many years now.   I've also read everything CBM wrote contemporaneous to the events as he was building and opening NGLA, as well as Whigham's articles.   I've heard that CBM's book doesn't get into architecture quite as bit as one might hope and also that the 20 year after the fact recollections is more about golf generally than golf course architecture and not really that useful as a tool for precise historical analysis sourcing and time-lining, so it hasn't been at the top of my need-to-have limited funds library, but you are correct that I need to read it and plan to.

Then, if there's any further need, I'll ask questions to you about NGLA on another thread.

Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Phillip,

Weeks is not source material, but it may refer to source material (although clearly not enough.)   Mike is playing games by alluding to these references without even bothering to mention what they are.

------------------------------------------------

Mike Cirba,

Why would I write that?  I strongly disagree with your reading of that quote and don't see justification for such a reading whatsoever.  I already explained why a few times.  Your reference to what Weeks thought is what doesn't advance the conversation.  Weeks wasn't there.   I don't care what Weeks thought unless you can show me why he wrote what he did.   So far as I can tell, Weeks saw the word "opposition" and just assumed it must have been related to opposition to golf generally, same as you.    That interpretation makes no sense whether you say it or Weeks.

__________________________________________________

Frankly I don't care if you read the CBM book or not.  I'll just not entertain questions about NGLA which distract from the topic at hand.  I'm not expert on everything NGLA, but I'd be glad to answer any questions the best I can on the appropriate thread.  

That said, your excuses for not having read CBM's book do not justify the hypocrisy you have exhibited toward me and TomM on these issues.  How can you demand that we contact clubs, obtain their records, scour their club histories before we offer our opinions,  yet you offer your opinions without even bothering to look at the most obvious sources?  

__________________________________________________

From what you and others have presented about Weeks, it seems that he was quite confused about the nature of some of his source material, particularly Bush's recollections.   Weeks confused Bush's recollections with the administrative record, did he not?  

[Kevin Lynch]

For example, he calls Bush the Club Secretary and claims Bush's reminiscences - written many years later - are Board records!

I'm not going to try and go back through all the previous 43 pages, but can someone please confirm when Bush was at the Club, and when he wrote down his "reminiscences" that David is referring to.  I just want to make sure I'm not "misremembering" the timing or if I missed something.

[DMoriarty]

I don't think we know when Bush wrote Golf: A Triumph of Hope over Experience, but in it he reportedly described the evolution of the 2nd hole, which had already been lengthened several times.   He said it was 430 yards then.   Tom MacWood found listings of the hole at 430 yards from 1904 on.  

Bush was definitely a member of the club and a "Steward" in 1894, but he was not the Club Secretary as Weeks claimed, and what Weeks claimed was his "terse entry into the club records" by Secretary Bush actually appears to be some later account, probably the same reminiscence.

[Kevin Lynch]

 
Bush was definitely a member of the club and a "Steward" in 1894, but he was not the Club Secretary as Weeks claimed, and what Weeks claimed was his "terse entry into the club records" by Secretary Bush actually appears to be some later account, probably the same reminiscence.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm not sure why it matters whether Bush wrote down something he remembered informally or if it was an official "record" of the Club (there seems to be some discussion whether it's a "recollection" or something in the records).

If he was an early member of the Club, wouldn't anything he wrote down or relayed be pretty compelling, no matter what the format?  I suppose you could contend that he may be "misremembering" details if he wrote them down years later, but I think something as big as who designed the course would stick with an early member.

I can understand why you may dismiss Weeks account, since he wasn't there and would depend on sources.  But since Bush was there, wouldn't any form of his recollection be important?

Looked at another way, isn't a newspaper account just a write-up of someone's recollection? I'm assuming the writers received their information from a member, rather than a review of club records.

_______________

Having said all that, I'm trying to remember what, exactly, is attributed to Bush's recollection.  There's reference to his short entry that the Executive Committee decided in March 1894 to build a golflinks on the Myopia ground (which doesn't prove who actually made the layout), but what else is specifically attributed to Bush's recollections?

I haven't seen "Golf: A Triumph of Hope Over Experience", so I'm not sure what is claimed in that.

____________
Again, I apologize if I've missed something through all the pages and am asking a pretty dumb question.  In the course of processing all 43 pages of this (in one evening), I may very well have confused "who said what."

[Mike Cirba]

Bush was Secretary of the golf committee at Myopia in the beginning.

It's truly horrific and tragic even that Weeks dod not make this life and death distinction.

David,

Which courses of CBMs are in question that his book provides adequate documentation about?

[DMoriarty]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm not sure why it matters whether Bush wrote down something he remembered informally or if it was an official "record" of the Club (there seems to be some discussion whether it's a "recollection" or something in the records).

For what it is worth, I do take Bush at face value.  But Bush did not write anything about who laid out the initial course.   The reason the mistake is significant is that Weeks would have known who the Club Secretary was had he actually been looking at the club records, and he would have known that Bush's snippet was not an administrative record. It is also significant because it strongly suggests that Weeks was really confused about what was going on here.

Now Joe Bausch tells us that the Run Book had been lost, and while he has not yet confirmed that the records were lost for 1894 in particular, it nonetheless looks more and more like Weeks was NOT relying on club records as the basis of his narrative about AM&G.    

If he was an early member of the Club, wouldn't anything he wrote down or relayed be pretty compelling, no matter what the format?  I suppose you could contend that he may be "misremembering" details if he wrote them down years later, but I think something as big as who designed the course would stick with an early member.

Again, I do take what Bush wrote at face value. But no one has brought anything forward indicating that Bush even addressed who created the course.  

Generally, I wouldn't be so quick to assume that these guys would definitely remember, because don't think these guys were all that concerned with who designed their courses. They apparently did not see these things as significant or permanent like we do today.  There was no concept of the "design" of a course like there is today.  Take a look at the Shinnecock thread for a key example.   Parrish was the Club Secretary and actually with Willie Davis when they located the land for the Shinnecock course.  And, while with Davis, Parrish even hit the first golf ball at the location.  Yet he wrongly attributed the initial course to Willie Dunn, and wrote that the initial course was a 12 hole course, apparently confusing the original nine hole course with Dunn's 12 hole course from 1893.    

I can understand why you may dismiss Weeks account, since he wasn't there and would depend on sources.  But since Bush was there, wouldn't any form of his recollection be important?

Again, I do take what Bush wrote at face value, even where he is a bit confusing. But no one has brought anything forward indicating that Bush even addressed who created the course.  

Looked at another way, isn't a newspaper account just a write-up of someone's recollection? I'm assuming the writers received their information from a member, rather than a review of club records.

I am not sure "recollection" is the correct word since those articles appeared in conjunction with the opening tournament. Yes the information likely came from a member, but it had just happened and was likely fresh in the member's mind.  It wasn't mixed up with all of what else happened regarding the course for the next decade or so.    Plus, the main article contains plenty of information suggesting the person supplying the information knew what he/she was talking about.

_______________

Having said all that, I'm trying to remember what, exactly, is attributed to Bush's recollection.  There's reference to his short entry that the Executive Committee decided in March 1894 to build a golflinks on the Myopia ground (which doesn't prove who actually made the layout), but what else is specifically attributed to Bush's recollections?

“At a meeting of the Executive Committee about March 1894 it was decided to build a golf links on the Myopia Grounds.  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 about June 1, 1894.”

I don't recall anything else from Bush of direct significance to the creation of the course having been brought forward.   That little blip seems to be the basis for Weeks' claims and the basis for the alternate "theory" that and Weeks' narrative about AMG are the only "support" for the claim that AMG were responsible.   This complete lack of support is why I find this conversation frustrating.  There is just nothing there.    

That is why I keep trying to get a list of facts.    So far as I can tell, there is NOTHING which points to AM&G as the creators of the course.  

________________________________

Mike Cirba tries to downplay Weeks error by noting that Weeks was the secretary of the golf committee.  But Weeks reported that Bush was the one keeping the club records!  That is the job of the Secretary of the Club.  

____________________________________

Mike Cirba.  I thought you were done trying to inject NGLA into this discussion?   You've repeatedly and mistakenly tried to rewrite NGLA's history even though it is well documented, so I have know idea what other histories of CBM's courses  you might decide to distort.    You still owe us an explanation about your hypocrisy.

What else about the Weeks book makes you think that the had the Run Book for 1894?

[Mike Cirba]

David,

An explanation?  And here I mistakenly thought you were lacking a sense of humor!   Good for you and mea culpa!! 

You should just ask TMac to make you a copy of the Weeks book so you actually can argue about it with facts and knowledge at your disposal. 

That would be welcomed at this point, I'm sure.

Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Your getting as bad as TEPaul with this implying that you are relying on information that I haven't seen.   If you want me to have the book, send me yours.  It is already digitized.   But I am pretty confident that between the four of you with copies that you have brought forward any listed source material relating to the initial creation of the course.   Given that there is NOTHING SO FAR, it is pretty easy for me to keep track.

As for your hypocrisy, why do you demand things of TomM and I that you don't live by yourself?  Here is your self-serving and self-righteous statement of your "methodology" from the Shinnecock thread:

"In other words, if I am going to take it upon myself to present a new or different version of someone's established history, I'd better be pretty certain that I've done all my homework, and to me that means prior outreach to the club or those associated with the club when possible."

You've come up with all sorts of crazy theories about NGLA which would rewrite portions of their history.   You've claimed various individuals should be added to the credits, claimed it was part of a real estate scheme, claimed the course was 110 acres, credited Hutchinson, Travis, and Emmet with the design, disputed the date it was ready for play, disputed the opening date of the club, etc . . .  So tell us about how you reached out to NGLA and examined their internal records?   Tell us about you went to them first as a show of respect?  

[Mike Cirba]

David,
There is nothing I've claimed about NGLA that would be a surprise to the club to my knowledge. 

Your characterizations of my positions is inaccurate, but I expect that by now.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Weeks quotes the 1896 Run Book on page 36 of his work.  On page 37, he quotes a July 1895 Boston Herald article concerning an upcoming golf event.  On Pages 38 and 39 he quotes the Evening Courier and the Golfer's Magazine about the long nine and another golf event.

This doesn't answer whether the 1894 Run Book was lost, obviously.  On the other hand, he either used a variety of sources or just quoted from the 1941 book, with its combination of club records and newspaper clippings inserted as replacement club records in an attempt to recover their history.

Even so, given that he quoted other sources with dates, etc., is it is merely speculation that he quoted a post 1904 Bush remembrance as being written by the Club Secretary?  Weeks seems pretty precise to me, not confused and I believe that Bush, as Club Secretary in 1897-8 did write that into a club record and that Weeks recorded it exactly right, including Bush's vagueness on exact dates in March and June of 1894.  It is pure speculation that was written by Bush many years later is the only scenario that makes sense.  

Given the precision with which Weeks attributes his quotes throughout, and the occaisional use of the word "probably" to tell us when he is writing on his own, I believe that when he wrote that it was a quote from Secretary Bush in the club records, that it was a quote from Secretary Bush in the club records.  To pretend that this is one he got wrong, without reading the book, or to pretend he is generally incompetent to make one argument or another seems wrong to me.

BTW, as far as I know, this thread isn't supposed to be about NGLA, Shinny, or Merion!

[Mike Cirba]

None of this long winded debate has come close to answering the question of why the only two men who looked at all the available evidence from inside the clubs walls came separately to the same conclusion.

Pretending evidence doesn't exist without searching for it doesn't make it so.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

Bush was Club Secretary in 1897-98?   Do you have a basis for writing that, or is it just another mystery fact you made up to suit your purposes?  

Bush wasn't the club Secretary when the events happened.  He is writing about events that took place in the past. To insist that this was an entry by the Club Secretary into the Club Records defies logic.

You say that Weeks quoted the Run Book from 1896, but if that is the same quote Mike provided then that sure reads like a reminiscence on golf to me.  IMO it was written as if for an audience, not to log events.   It sure reads like the sort of thing one might read in a reminiscence about golf, such as the one we know that Bush wrote.    

Weeks was obviously confused.

I agree with that this isn't about Shinnecock, NGLA, or Merion.  But your hypocrisy and Mike's are a big presence here as well as in those conversations.

____________________________________

Mike Cirba

 I accurately and gently portrayed some of the absurd positions you have taken regarding NGLA.   Should I start a thread pulling some of them up so you can explain why you didn't go to NGLA?  

Your last post about the two accounts is nonsense.  You don't know what the two men looked at and you certainly don't know that they SEPARATELY came to their conclusions.  In fact May acknowledges that his information came from the club.   You think that Weeks was some outsider doing his own work separate from the club.     You do bring up a good point if only accidentally.   If May relied on the run book he would likely have said have said so.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

What year do you think he was club secretary?  I ask, because I am pretty sure that when you properly explained that he was golf committee secretary in 1895-6, you or someone mentioned in this thread that he ascended to club secretary.  Of course, that was perhap 30 pages ago, so I could be wrong, but someone did post that here, IIRC.

The Run Book quote is on page 36 of Weeks and says its a "note in the 1896 Run Book" concerning their match with Newport.  So where do you get the idea that it was really a remincisence and Weeks just mislabled it?

I guess I get frustrated that we are supposed to take your "opinions" as to what something sounds like, even without having read it as historical analysis while actually quoting something directly or reading it is dissed.  And a harder time being called a hypocrite by someone like you.

  

[Jeff_Brauer]

I actually don't think Weeks was confused at all. Reading more of the Weeks account again, I notice another quote from a note in the 1896 Run Book:

"Members come in from a hunt exilharated, but the golfer is usually downcast after a round."  He then mixes in an ancedote, labeled as a "conversation overheard on the Pond hole tee."

My point is that it seems that the run book also had some remembrances and glimpses into club life, and was not just a dry club record, so David's assumption that Weeks isn't quoting from club records, because they don't look like any he has seen may also be wrong.  I agree that club records tend to be dry, but there are exceptions, and perhaps, like architecture itself, as a pioneer in the US club note taking field, the standards simply hadn't been, well, standardized yet.

BTW, if the 1894 Run Book had been lost, would it defy logic to have the golf secretary or club secretary try to rewrite those records as best he could a year or two later?  Is that any less probable than Weeks mislabeling a quote from a phamplet published many years later?  And to say WE twist things to suit our own conclusions.  David, you again tell us that your theory depends on your logic, which is not historical analysis, is it?

[DMoriarty]

Well someone is confused.    


You really think that quote came from the Run Book?   My understanding is that the Run Book was supposed to log events at the club.  In fact it was called the "Log-Book" then, not the Run Book.  

I am interested in the anecdote supposedly from the Run Book, "conversation overheard by the on the pond hole tee-box."   Let me guess:

"I just drove over the pond with a putter!"
"Why did you do it ? "
"Oh, in the cause of science," was the reply.

This is the only sunbeam that was ever known to penetrate the gloom of Myopian golf.

How'd I do?    I'll bet not all bad, considering I have neither the Weeks' book nor the Run Book.  

Someone is or was confused.  Either Weeks or you guys. Either way what you are presenting from this book has more holes that Myopia's golf course.

What did Weeks discuss next?  The coach "Myopia" which ran from Manchester-by-the-Sea to the kennels on polo days in the mid 1890's?  Or perhaps the coach "Constitution" which years earlier had run from Pride's Crossing to
Manchester-by-the-Sea, thence to the kennels?  If so, I'll bet they were both a credit to the club, well horsed and well managed in every way.

_____________________________

As for your last paragraph, no it makes no sense to recreate an administrative record a few years after he fact.  If they had, then why would it still be lost in 1940?   Plus, you have to assume yet another string of your factions into existence, this time that the book was lost in 1894 or thereabouts and then recreated a few years later.   

You cannot just make things up.

And logic is very much a part of factual analysis.  That is the analysis part.   But it is analysis of FACTS, not stuff you make up to suit your needs. 

[TEPaul]

Recently I've been trying to follow the last few weeks or the last ten pages of this thread but it isn't easy. All the discussants are making all kinds of misinterpretations about the actual records of the club. As I mentioned on a group email to the regular participants on this thread some time ago I am willing to go to Myopia this year to review their archives. I have spoken to some members of the club about this including their historian. I have not broached the subject to them about how or if they would like to make various material public but that is something I promise I will certainly bring up.

I hope that helps the discussants on this thread and gives them some encouragement. If not, I will take that into consideration as well.

The idea here, I hope, is to get the most and the most accurate historical material and information that may be available. I think that is what this website ultimately hopes to accomplish with these kinds of subjects on these kinds of significant Amercan golf courses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

Works for me. I am interested to know more about this historic place.

David,

As long as you continue to make things up (i.e., Weeks was confused) then the rest of us probably will too.

BTW, the discussion by the pond was the separate anecdote, not said to be in the run book.  So again, you get it wrong.  Give it up David, and for once just admit you might be wrong.

[DMoriarty]

It sickens me to see TEPaul posting again after what he pulled.  I had hoped Ran would show better judgment this time before again giving him a forum for his garbage.

_______________________________________________

Jeff Brauer. 

Both the supposed "Run Book" quote and the "pond conversation" quote are from the songbook written by Abbott.

Did Weeks continue on with a discussion of the coaches running to Myopia for polo games?  That is from Abbott as well.   

Did you make up the bit about Bush being Secretary in 1897-1898?  That wasn't from Abbott. 

[Kevin Lynch]

It sickens me to see TEPaul posting again after what he pulled.  I had hoped Ran would show better judgment this time before again giving him a forum for his garbage.
 

David,

What is the point of that? What possible good can be accomplished by going off on TEPaul when he re-enters thus discussion with fairly genuine sounding offer to help forward thus discussion?

If you're upset about things he said before - fine. A number of us made comments about some of the unfortunate statements Tom had been making recently.  But as far as I can tell, those behaviors stopped for the last several weeks as Tom stepped back.

Perhaps he stopped and reflected on those things. Maybe he didn't.

But it seems to me that there was nothing in that last post warranting that reaction.

[Kevin Lynch]

TEPaul,

That would be much appreciated in advancing these discussions.

I think your last paragraph is very true, and know that your experience and connections could be invaluable towards achieving that goal.