[TEPaul]

Tom:

That's OK; if you don't want to answer that question on here, that's fine, we've all come to expect that kind of response from you. This thread is about Willie Campbell and Myopia, and unless Willie had some talent for fox hunting, polo, tennis or court tennis none of us have heretofore been aware of this thread is about Myopia's golf architectural history. Throughout most of my life and then after I became familiar with the history of golf architecture and the history of golf architecture at Myopia, I have been aware that it has always been inextricably inter-related with the life and times of Herbert C. Leeds at Myopia.

So if you don't want to answer a question on this thread about what you have to support your claim that Campbell and Leeds ever had any kind of relationship----eg with the teaching of Leeds how to play golf or with mentoring or even influencing Leeds with golf course architecture, that's fine with me. I think you just made that up as just another way to try to make it look like Willie Campbell had more to do with the golf architectural history of Myopia than he apparently ever did.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
Where did I say I would not answer your question?

If you are interested go ahead and start a new thread and I'll present what I have there, and you can present what you have that shows Leeds was self taught.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

In the acknowledgement section of Weeks book he says that George Batchhelders started looking up both the history and legend of Myopia.  He later notes that he has used "all the run books" and then mentions that he had the Leeds scrap book at his disposal, together with some research from the USGA, five living Hound Masters, and many letters of rembrances from people who had been at the club as long ago as 1911.  One was a Reverand Moore.

Do you suppose he started the big lie right in his acknowledgements?  Hoiw about the Rev?  Was he a liar, too?

[Mike Cirba]

Well, I guess that answers that!

[TEPaul]

Tom:

That's true, you did not say you wouldn't answer that question.

The question was---what are you using as evidence to support your statements on here that Campbell taught Leeds how to play golf and that Campbell was Leeds's mentor on golf architecture or Campbell was an influence on Leeds's architecture?

I can tell you right here and now what I'm using as my sources of information for the story that Leeds was self-taught, and of my sources of information about others aspects of Leeds at Myopia and otherwise. The first one for this discussion on here is Weeks's book in which he mentions Leeds was self taught. That story was confirmed to me before the fact of reading Weeks's book. It goes back over the last 50 years via a whole list of men who I have known well over my life because they were all such good friends of my father's. I would even be willing to tell you who they were and what they said about Leeds over the years. A good half dozen or more of them are mentioned in Weeks's Myopia history book and you can even see photographs of them in the book.

Why did they all talk about Leeds as they did and so long after his life and times? I have my own theories about that but it should be sufficient to say that of all those kinds of clubs I have known through my life I would have to say that the 3-4 that for various reasons seem to be completely imbued with the aura of a particular person in the history of a club would be Pine Valley with John Arthur Brown, ANGC with Cliff Roberts, Oakmont with particularly W.C. Fownes and Myopia with Herbert Leeds. As far as I know Leeds was never the president of Myopia as the others were of those clubs but his aura was nevertheless as pervasive as the others were and I expect it always will be with Myopia.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I may have been a little strong in contending that you are calling Weeks a liar.  But just to get it straight, are you contending over the last year and a half that Weeks is an unreliable source because of what you say are strange choices of words, use of quotes, etc?  

Do you believe that the long time editor of the prestigious Atlantic Monthly magazine was in poor command of the English langauge?  Unable to use grammar correctly? Not knowledgeable about how to research a story?  No dedication to presenting it as accurately as possible, using the same standards that would be brought to bear in the Atlantic Monthly?

Which skills do you think he lacked that would make him make such strange and bizarre choices in his writings about his home club of Myopia, the one where he undertook writing of the book specifically because he thought the history of golf at Myopia had been underrepresented?

Do you think he only kept the top job at Atlantic monthly all that while because he had pictures of the publisher with some of those Myopia sheep?

And, do you think it coincidence that when he listed his sources in the acknowledgement, that he didn't happen to mention the Bush Rembrances along with the more first hand accounts that he seems to have relied on?  Given your belief about contemporaneous sources, who do you believe knows better what sources he used - you 50 years after the fact, or him, writing a foreward immediately on completion of the book?

I will say this, though - if he used Leeds, and for whatever reason Leeds was dismissive of WC, and thus left him out of his scrapbook concerning design, then it is possible that his writing may reflect Leeds bias or omissions.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I think TMac based his theory on that erroneous news article that stated Leeds had only started playing in the spring of 1894.

I subsequently posted two articles from 1893 that made clear Leeds was playing from the inception of golf at TCC, or over a year before Campbell arrived in the US and was already a top player.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I think TMac based his theory on that erroneous news article that stated Leeds had only started playing in the spring of 1894."

Mike:

That could be so, and it is understandable, I suppose, that he may make that assumption if a 1894 newspaper article said it, and it's understandable as well if at the time of his theory and assumption he was not aware of any other articles (or other information) that mentioned Leeds had been playing golf earlier than the spring of 1894.

Nevertheless, he still seems to maintain that Campbell taught Leeds how to play golf so perhaps he will tell us what evidence he bases that notion on.

Personally, I feel that points like this border on the irrelevant and trivial but I suppose they are worth discussing anyway, but not if any of us get ridiculously intransigent about the discussion of some of these minor points.

I feel this particular thread, at least when it was begun by Tom MacWood about a year and a half ago was presented by him because of a concern that he had----eg that Campbell's contribution to early American golf architecture has been ignored or minimized or misunderstood and that Myopia's lack of acknowledgement for what Campbell did for them was in a significant way responsible.

I think that particular point is a good one and one that should be revisited if this subject is ever going to get wrapped up on here.

I will make a post on my feeling about that later.




JeffB:

I do not recall that Tom MacWood has ever actually said or implied that Weeks was a liar; but he has stated numerous times on here that he thinks Weeks was a poor and unreliable researcher. He said the same thing about Merion's history book writer Desmond Tolhurst.

That of course is his opinion but what I feel is so illogical on MacWood's part is his constant contention that if Weeks did not mention some detail that automatically must mean he could not have been aware of it.

I feel the far more logical reason for him not mentioning something was that he just didn't think it was important or significant enough to mention in a 147 page club history book that also dealt with the club's history of fox hunting, polo and tennis as well as golf and the club's golf course architecture.

Frankly, Weeks's Myopia history book does not deal with the history of the architecture of the golf course for more than about ten pages but that does not mean and should not mean, in my opinion, that there is not information on more of the details of the history of the architecture in the archives of the club.

This has been mentioned and explained to Tom MacWood numerous times on this thread but as is his habit, he just chooses to ignore it or to discuss it.

[Tom MacWood]

TMac,

In the acknowledgement section of Weeks book he says that George Batchhelders started looking up both the history and legend of Myopia.  He later notes that he has used "all the run books" and then mentions that he had the Leeds scrap book at his disposal, together with some research from the USGA, five living Hound Masters, and many letters of rembrances from people who had been at the club as long ago as 1911.  One was a Reverand Moore.

Do you suppose he started the big lie right in his acknowledgements?  Hoiw about the Rev?  Was he a liar, too?

What big lie? If Leeds had the scrapbook it begs the question why did he not know when and how Long Nine was created, when the new eighteen was created, and the Campbell connection.

What do you make of the story about the Leeds scrapbook getting lost? Where did that story originate? How do you loose an historical document like that?

Who is Reverand Moore?

[TEPaul]

Tom:

I'm quite sure no one on this website can speak to the apparent lose of the Leeds Scrapbook like I can but I do understand as well that it probably does gall you to have to actually acknowledge that fact and that reality. Nevertheless, if you want to know I would be happy to discuss all I now know about it with you and civilly, hopefully.

I am of the belief, that those kinds of assets that were used as the Leeds Scrapbook was by Weeks are not actually lost and gone, it's just that the Leeds Scrapbook specifically has been misplaced or mislaid for some mundane reason. It is very possible that the Leeds Scrapbook ended up in the possession of Lincoln Boyden and that it is in his estate's possessions somehow and somewhere even if that avenue has recently been pursued.

The way assets like that get lost or misplaced is actually remarkably simple and mundane in the case of history book writers. The factual stories about that are becoming legend and they are becoming perhaps more problematic than old club assets being lost to fires or floods or even having old records just thrown away over the years. I do understand that you do not get involved with clubs like that though and so it is completely understandable that you would not appreciate these things and that you would ask a question on here like that. It is actually a very good question to bring up on a website like this one.

Lincoln Boyden died some time ago but his widow just died and consequently their estate possessions are probably still in probate or flux. Just to show you the wrench of the aspect of time passing by, I believe that is  Mrs Boyden in the photographic set in Weeks's book just after page 102. I remember seeing her----she was a cool lady, and it's not hard at all to tell from that photograph she was athletic.


Reverend Moore was Paul Moore and he became an Episcopalian Bishop! He was one of a group of unusual WASP social "Do-Gooders" who were basically social liberals and who all went to St Paul's and college together and were lifelong friends and "cause" collaborators. They included Moore, Tony Drexel Duke who created Boys Harbor and US Senator Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island. All of them are eminently findable and researchable these days on GOOGLE! So you should look them up. It will help you understand the larger tapestry of this subject.

[DMoriarty]

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,

To say that I am upset about TEPaul's past behavior and his return understates the matter in the extreme.  He has gone so far over the line with me and on so many occasions that the thought of even having a conversation with him makes my blood boil.  His last transgression was malicious and actionable libel per se, defamation at its lowest and most blatant, made worse by the fact that he had purposefully spread the EXACT SAME LIES about me in the past.  While I appreciate that a few posters were appalled and said so, that by no means sets things right or corrects the damage done, and it by no means prevents him for digressing into his abhorrent behavior as soon as anything doesn't go his way, or just getting carried away agian late at night as some sort of sick joke.

I do my best to make a contribution here, and I think some would agree that I have added to our knowledge of the history of golf course design, and have provided interesting and valuable information.  My efforts should not have to face such garbage and lies, yet surely further insults and defamation await me as soon as he again loses control.   After all, he has repeatedly and publicly promised to do do all he can to tear me down and ruin my reputation, and has been attempting to do so for at least four or five years now.  Is it reasonable to think he will suddenly stop?  I don't think so.  Everyone who knows him - including Ran - must realize that he cannot control himself and that it is only a matter of time until he comes after me again.

As for Tom "stepping back" and reflecting on his behavior, you have got to be kidding me.  Surely the only reason he wasn't posting was because he wasn't allowed to post.  And the idea of his using this time away to reflect upon his past behavior and change his ways?  That is even more of a joke.  During this supposed contemplative respite he still managed to find time to send insulting emails to my personal email.  Here is an excerpt:

"You guys give all other half-baked amateur historians a good name by comparison. Your lack of knowledge, understanding and your limited information on the history of that club is about on par with your lack of knowledge, understanding and limited information on Merion."

Does that really sound like he was reflecting on and contemplating changing his ways to you?  When I told him to stop contacting me not only continued to contact me, he even questioned why I wanted nothing to do with him!  It apparently hadn't even occurred to him that I might have good reason to be pissed off, as if he was somehow immune from consequences.  He even had the nerve to tell us that we needed to quit discussing Myopia until he got around to telling us what really happened. Hardly reflective contemplation aimed at more productive participation.

As for his offer to go to Myopia and obtain accurate information about the club, he must think we are complete fools, and unfortunately your response plays right into that idea.   He has been telling us for years that he already conducted a review of the very same documents he now claims he will go see!   Supposedly he has already gone over these club records, but it turns out now that those very records that he claims he has reviewed may have been lost sometime before 1940!  Yet he has not only been insisting that he had seen these records, he repeatedly claimed that these records contained specific information and that we needed to take his word for it!   Must of that information has turned out to be mistaken and unreliable.

Trust TEPaul, who occasionally even fudges the contents of existing source material?  No way. When he did not think anyone would be able to check up on it, he deleted key words from a S. Dacre Bush quote, and tried pass off the falsified quote as real.  (He had done the same thing on the Merion threads; deleting the key sentence out of a Alan Wilson letter when he thought no one else had it to verify it!)  Outrageous.

Yet you think it is a productive step for us to put our faith in him to tell us what happened at Myopia?  I don't agree.  Surely this is just the latest attempt to exert control over the history of a golf club, and to dictate to us what the history is without allowing any questions or vetting.   Just like with the rest of the clubs where he has pulled the same thing.    

This all may sound harsh, but every bit of it is accurate and I would be glad to document any or all of it if you are interested.   And this is only Myopia.   It barely touches on the numerous other deceptive and dishonest games he has been playing on other threads and about other issues.

In short, while I cannot control how Ran administers his website, it is too much to expect me to not express how I feel about Ran allowing TEPaul to return, and it is much too much to expect me to greet him with open arms.  He deserves a far worse response than he has received thus far.   Some day he will get his just reward, but for the here and now I want nothing do with him.

So if you want to hide your head in the sand and pretend like the slate is clean, then go ahead. I won't stop you, but I'll not join you either.  But I will try channel my anger into something more productive.  Except perhaps for a bit of unfinished business, I want nothing to do with him.  He is not worth it.  

[DMoriarty]

With that off my chest, I'll return to the topic at hand.  

With each new piece of information from Weeks, it becomes more and more obvious that the Weeks book is not not reliable when it comes to its supposed sources. This thread is turning out to be an excellent example of the dangers of treating these club histories as Gospel, treating the information therein as infallible, and drawing all sorts of crazy and self serving conclusions from them.  

The latest example is the quote from the supposed "Leeds' Scrapbook," or as it is sometimes called around here, "Leeds' diary."   We've been hearing for years about the significance of this "Scrapbook" and about how it was much more than just a scrapbook - it was supposed to contain the elusive Leeds' writings, his actual ideas on golf course design, and compelling ideas they were!   Here is TEPaul writing about the the "diary" from a few years ago:

"In my opinion, Myopia's [records] are better than most and probably a whole lot better than most in both accuracy and comprehensiveness. The reasons for that are many and complex with a club like Myopia.

With Myopia, however, there is one "asset" (we now call these valuable historical items "assets") that seems to be missing and may be gone even though the search for it should not be given up at this time. And that is this famous so-called "Scrapbook" that Herbert Carey Leeds, the course's long time architect, kept for apparently many years. From the references and quotes from it contained in Edward Weeks's Myopia history book of 1975 it was definitely a most important diary that Leeds kept about all kinds of things certainly including his thoughts and philosophies on golf and golf course architecture.

Edward Weeks had it and used it in his 1975 book but where it is now noone seems to know. I'm going to keep searching though."

And I see above he is going on again about his expertise and this "source" as if on cue.  Now I finally understand the basis for all this diary talk, and the "basis" for TEPaul's ideas about this latest holy grail of golf course design. Like everything else TEPaul and friends know about Myopia's history, it is all just an extension from the Weeks' history book, or rather conclusions they have drawn based on the Weeks' book.   Weeks' quoted from some Scrapbook but doesn't mention a second source, so it seems as if these are Leeds' words; as if Leeds himself was explaining his "thoughts and philosophies on golf and golf course architecture."   Surely this explains why TEPaul and unnamed others have concluded that this Leeds' scrapbook amounts to some sort of a Leeds' diary, revealing his innermost thoughts on the game.

Trouble is, like the quotes above from Jeff Brauer which were supposedly from the "Run Book," this blurb isn't what people think it is.  As soon as it was posted, I knew I had read it before,  and not in some Leeds' diary --I no more have possession of the Leeds "diary" than I have possession of the old Run Book or Weeks book!    I have a terrible  memory for many things, but things I read usually stick with me, and I knew I had seen this before.

After poking around a bit looking at some of my notes, I would wager that this quote is from a 1903 Golf Illustrated, and might know the author but want to double check to be sure.  If I get a chance I'll go and reexamine the original and provide more details sometime next week, but in the meantime with a little searching I have managed to locate an online excerpt of part of the piece:

 The whole tendency for years has been to remove all difficulties from courses. The horse- mower is in constant use, and nearly the whole course is now cut and rolled and made to look more like a bowling-green than golf links.  Instead of filling up the bunkers complained of, the course would be much improved if many more similar ones were made, to punish long, erratic driving.
   During the late championship I had talks with several old golfers. Archie Simpson said to me, 'I mind when I was here if I got round in 80, I thought I thought I was playing grand golf; look at it now,' I met James Kay at the thirteenth hole. He said 'this is easy golf; I have had nothing but teed balls.' Willie Park and Andrew Kirkaldy expressed the same opinion. One of the new school said to me the course was in beautiful order, but he thought more of the long grass should have been cut round the greens! The one thought of the new school seems to be to remove anything that might spoil a score. They think it is golf to get into the hole in the fewest number of strokes, forgetting, as Sir Alexander Kinloch so well expressed it “That is not golf, and, please God, never will be golf.  Golf is to get into the hole in one stroke less than your opponent.” To eliminate chance from any game is to spoil it. (my bold)

Look familiar?  Great stuff, but am almost positive it wasn't Leeds who wrote it. Yet according to those who have presented it here, Weeks quotes out of the article but doesn't bother to mention it was even from an article, instead crediting the diary?  Is that correct?  Did he really not site the article?  Or have those who brought this up misrepresented it?  

Is it just me, or are a number of these Weeks quotes not what they purport to be  The supposed "entry" into the record by Secretary Bush?  The supposed Run Book entry that came from the Myopia Songbook?   This latest quote which is at the very least misattributed?  About everything you guys bring forward to prove the credibility of the Weeks book backfires and undermines it further.   No wonder Mike Cirba hasn't gotten around to sending me the relevant sections.  

And what of the supposed researchers who think they know so much about Myopia.  FOR YEARS we have been hearing about the "dairy" but these guys just assumed it into existence because they didn't bother to check up on the Weeks book. I guess it makes a better story to pretend that the Scrapbook must have been a "diary" than to simply figure out where the quote actually came from.   What a joke.  

Are there any other supposed diary entries?   Surely we can quickly find the real source there as well.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

This one is over.

It4 obvious that Weeks had many more sources than any of us have ever seen and perhaps somehow Campbell got missed in Myopia's records but that point is nearly moot given the evolution very early of the golf course.

Let's move on to discussing NGLA on another thread...

This one is done til someone sees the Runbook.

Stick a fork in it.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
I've been following GCA for a number of years and I don't recall anyone successfully putting a fork in any thread with a post like yours. If you don't like the direction of the thread, which is understandable, don't post on it.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

I sure do know that I would, and I suspect others would as well, just love to know who actually was the one who first spoke the words in that second quotation of yours in blue in your post #1636! 

[DMoriarty]

It is over?   Right after we figure out that two more of Weeks quotes were misattributed?  That is convenient.  

I think the notion of a Leeds diary appears to be "over."  And the notion that Weeks was quoting from a Run Book is close to over.  

I warned you guys about this a long time ago.  As well meaning as Weeks was, these insider histories are far from Gospel.  Treating them as such is bound to backfire.  We are better off just focusing on the source material than following Weeks' lead.

I believe the relevant Run Book was most likely lost, but I am still waiting for Joe Bausch to confirm that.

Joe?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

I will extend my question on Weeks qualifications and motivations a bit further:

Does anyone believe that the long time editor of the prestigious Atlantic Monthly magazine was not familiar with what a good source was, the need to have corroborating sources, etc?  While I understand that a 147 page club history leaves some unanswered questions, I really have a hard time thinking he would forget everything he knew about good research and jounalism while writing this book, and mistakenly quote a 1903 article as something in the run book, or a attribute a quote to Bush that was really a passage in the Songbook.  Maybe once, but for a year and a half, that kind of premise of gross neglect is among the most argued here, according to David and TMac.....

If I happen to be wrong on this one, I will be the first one to stand in line and congratulate DM and TMac, as appropriate, for their great work in figuring out what really happened.  I really will.

PS to Mike Cirba - send me some of what you're smoking if you think you can end this thread.  It's only half way done, or less, trust me.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

Gross neglect is your premise, not mine.   I told you guys a while back that it was unfair to these authors for you guys to hold up their books as infallible and treat their words as unquestionable truth. Your emulation of these books is antithetical to the nature of historical analysis.  You entirely miss the point by making them the issue instead of the source material.

Do you think I am making this stuff up? Do you think I fabricated that quote from Golf Illustrated above? How about when I informed you that the bit about the downcast golfer and bit about the pond hole are in the Myopia Songbook?  Do you think I made it up when I told you guys that Bush was not the Secretary in 1894?

[Mike Cirba]

Why does it matter whether the entry in the Leeds Scrapbook was personally journaled by Leeds or clipped from an article he liked?   Weeks makes no claim that it was either.

The fact that's exhibited here is simply that Weeks had access to Leeds Scrapbook, whatever it entailed, which absolutlely and admittedly NONE of us know a thing about.  

Weeks also had access to ALL of the Run Books, and makes that point in the Acknowledgements.  

Why we continue to debate all playing with less than half-a-deck is beyond me.   What further speculation is going to miraculously solve this?   Instead, we're left playing word games, such as David making the apparently life-and-death point that Bush wasn't the Club Secretary, he was actually only the Secretary of the Golf Committee in 1894.   Wow...

The only place that answer lies is the same place Weeks and May went for answers.   The rest if just uninformed speculation and too much typing.

[TEPaul]

Kevin Lynch:

This morning for some reason I just happened to read your post #1263. It was a very good and thoughtful one. At the end of it you said the following:




"Usually, the posts that start the downward spiral include one of these phrases:


"Like I'm going to listen to a guy who  (insert past mistake / regrettable behavior here)..." 


Perhaps a New Year's resolution for these threads can be to hit "Preview" before "Post" and if anything in the post resembles the above two phrases, it be given a second consideration (and third, in cases of high tension)."




That was about ten pages and a bit over two weeks ago. Considering what we just saw on here yesterday, I would have to say that your foregoing remarks were pretty danged prescient, my boy! 

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

First, while we have both said at times that we don't know what a particular sentence means, I really don't have a clue as to what your sentence "emulation of these books is antithetical to the nature of historical analysis" means.

If the words gross neglect is overstating the case, then I'm sorry.  However, both you and TMac have pointed out numerous things which you feel are in error.  Even in this post you reveal that you believe Weeks is not infallible, to which I agreed eariler, to a degree.  However, I don't think its a valid premise in general, given Weeks nature and credenitals.  My questions are certainly valid ones to answer.

And, given how much you say you rely on contemporaneous evidence, I would say Weeks writing in the forward of his book vs. you providing examples of some inconsistencies is more reasonable historical analysis that he looked at the runbook and Leeds scrapbook over the view that he didn't.  I don't think you made up the fact that some quotes also appeared in the 1903 Golf Illustrated, but I also think its possible that they got the info from Leeds, too, rather than Weeks badly misattributing it. 

As to the second part of the "pond" quote, that was clearly labeled by Weeks as an anecdote, as opposed to the first part of the paragraph that he said came from the run book.  So, no, you didn't make that up, as Tom MacWood confirmed, but you will note that even TMac said "the second part is correct" and didn't share your view that the entire sequence came from the songbook.

Are you saying trying to propose more than one theory and then follow it to its conclusion with contemporary evidence is not good historical analysis?  If so, I disagree.  And while I don't want to sound ugly, I would say that continually pounding only one theory (i.e., Weeks was wrong) by ignoring some evidence, twisting others, would not be considered good analysis either.  It seems to show too much bias on your part to assume your conclusion and then make facts fit.

[TEPaul]

"Why we continue to debate all playing with less than half-a-deck is beyond me.   What further speculation is going to miraculously solve this?   Instead, we're left playing word games, such as David making the apparently life-and-death point that Bush wasn't the Club Secretary, he was actually only the Secretary of the Golf Committee in 1894.   Wow...

The only place that answer lies is the same place Weeks and May went for answers.   The rest if just uninformed speculation and too much typing."



Mike Cirba:

I just don't see how anyone, at this point, could disagree with what you said there. Consequently, I would lobby at this time that this thread end and not restart until something else of real relevance is uncovered or discovered.

As I see it the question about Myopia in 1894 and for Myopia, at this time, is if those men who researched for and were involved in the writing of the Weeks book---George Batchelder, W. Lincoln Boyden and Edward Weeks, were aware of some mention of Willie Campbell's involvement with that original nine hole course in 1894 or not. We sure can see now that his involvement was mentioned in some newspaper articles in 1894. Were those men aware of those articles? Unfortunately we probably will never be able to know that since all of them are dead now. But what if there are copies of those newspaper articles in the archives of the club or what if some of the records of the club from that time actually mention Campbell? Then the question becomes why those three men who were involved in that book never mentioned it. We will never know, though, if the club has any copies of those newspaper articles or if it has some mention of Campbell in its records without reviewing the club's archives.

And on the flip side we cannot escape the fact of what Weeks wrote about the early involvement of Appleton, Merrill and Gardner. Clearly the question on that is what was he looking at or hearing that could have led him to write what he did about Appleton, Merrill and Gardner? If it wasn't something then the next question becomes is it possible that he could've just made all that up out of thin air, including their names and all?

Of course I have my own experiences with that but given what has been said on here and what has happened on here I will not now address that again. But obviously if it becomes possible to comprehensively review Myopia's archives then these questions very well may find their appropriate answers.

Therefore, I lobby that this thread and this subject go into hiatus until something of real relevance does come up in our future.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Other than mentioning that John P. May of Golf Digest separately and earlier came up with Appleton, Gardner, and Merrill, as well, but also mentioned that the original course was 2,050 yards, I have nothing further to add.

I agree that this thread should be put in hiatus until such time as someone has new materials to present for our consideration.

Otherwise, pun fully intended, this horse has left the Hunt!  

[Steve Lang]

The porch surrounding the clubhouse is severely worn from the decades of metal spikes that once tread upon it. Apparently, a couple years ago, someone came up with the bright idea to flip the floorboards on the porch, and tidy the place up a little bit. In perfect irony, when the crew began the porch repairs, they discovered that several years ago, someone had came up with the same brilliant idea, and the underside of all the floorboards were equally worn. Appreciating the humor, the club decided to leave the porch as is, and move on.

now that's scrapbook material



Is that the club history or scrap book seen propped up on the table?

[TEPaul]

Steve Lang:

Thanks for the humor; we always need humor on a website like this one. Personally, I don't think we can ever have enough of it.

To be honest with you I have come to believe that it just might be one of the modern wonders of the world that the Myopia clubhouse has never burned down. When anyone sees it the first time they could not possibly not marvel at this amazing historic fact. And to boot, do you realize one can still smoke in a section of that clubhouse?? I think it just may be the last one left in America that allows that (allows me to smoke cigarretes in there).

As for those floorboards and the spike marks on both sides, something tells me if Herbert Corey Leeds could actually come back today to see that everyone now must use plastic soft spikes he would very likely throw them all off the property as total whimps and not people of class and tradition worthy of setting a foot on HIS porch!

I have always loved that place, going back over fifty years now but having watched it put through what it's been put through on here I think I love it more than ever. I have no doubt that Myopia will do the right thing with their history as they see it and as they understand it and for me that is all I would ever want to ask a club like that to do.




PS:
By the way, Steverino, speaking of spiked up floors, my wife informed me some years ago that she would like to have what she called "pecky wood" hardwood floors in our house. I suppose that must mean that a floor company must go out in the bush and find some tree that had woodpeckers working on it for a time. So I said, sure Honey, "pecky wood" floors you will definitely have. I just got regular hardwood floors, then I put on my golf spikes and stomped up and down them for a few hours and presto we had some of the coolest old fashioned looking "pecky wood" hardwood floors you ever saw!!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()