Willie Campbell & Myopia

[TEPaul]

“As to the more immediate topic at hand, it is disappointing that Whigham did not give more credit to the early professional pioneers like Willie Campbell.”

 

 

Why is that disappointing?

Perhaps Whigam felt (and with good reason), as Macdonald apparently did when he said  “the very soul of golf shrieks,” that it was those journeymen, quick and inexpensive architects who were primarily responsible for the majority of the deplorable state of architecture in America with the exception of a few good courses by those dedicated, “lots-of-time-in-on-their-special-project” amateur/sportsmen architects like Leeds of Myopia, the Fowneses of Oakmont, Emmett and Travis of GCGC, Wilson of Merion and Crump of Pine Valley et al, and most publicly Macdonald of NGLA.

After-all H.J. Whigam had his eye and ear to the ground with what was going on back then with American architecture a whole lot more than people like the Moriartys and MacWoods of today do, right? 

Who can deny that the courses that were praised in that first decade of the 20th century in America were Myopia, GCGC and perhaps Chicago GC (by Macdonald ).

Was that an unusual opinion at that time or was it a consensus opinion? What, after-all did HH Barker say Merion Ardmore's site had the potential to match? I remember him saying MYOPIA!! Why do you suppose that was if Myopia was not the IDEAL to emulate in his opinion at that time?!?

What I am saying here I firmly believe was the case of this early time. Am I trying to suggest the likes of Willie Campbell, HH Barker et al, those early journeymen, immigrant Scottish, English, multi-tasking (club professionals, teachers, clubmakers, greenkeepers) part-time architects who were the EMPLOYEES of those early private clubs had no raw talent, inherent talent or existing talent to do something truly excellent given loads of time and opportunity? 

Of course not! All I am saying is in that early time THEY did not have the time or the opportunity (or the remuneration---eg no one was willing to pay them to spend the time those "amateur/sportsmen" architects devoted for no pay to their famous "special" projects that took them years and sometimes decades) that those famous "amateur/sportsman" architects of the likes of Leeds, Emmet/Travis, Fowneses, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump HAD because of who they both were!

Is it possible to deny today that these things were true?

I, for one, don't think so.

 

[Tom MacWood]

Here is tribute from British Golf Illustrated. In the photo Willie looks to be about 80 years old, he was actually 38 when he died in 1900.

[Tom MacWood]

“As to the more immediate topic at hand, it is disappointing that Whigham did not give more credit to the early professional pioneers like Willie Campbell.”

 

 

Why is that disappointing?

Perhaps Whigam felt (and with good reason), as Macdonald apparently did when he said  “the very soul of golf shrieks,” that it was those journeymen, quick and inexpensive architects who were primarily responsible for the majority of the deplorable state of architecture in America with the exception of a few good courses by those dedicated, “lots-of-time-in-on-their-special-project” amateur/sportsmen architects like Leeds of Myopia, the Fowneses of Oakmont, Emmett and Travis of GCGC, Wilson of Merion and Crump of Pine Valley et al, and most publicly Macdonald of NGLA.

After-all H.J. Whigam had his eye and ear to the ground with what was going on back then with American architecture a whole lot more than people like the Moriartys and MacWoods of today do, right?  

Who can deny that the courses that were praised in that first decade of the 20th century in America were Myopia, GCGC and perhaps Chicago GC (by Macdonald ).

Was that an unusual opinion at that time or was it a consensus opinion? What, after-all did HH Barker say Merion Ardmore's site had the potential to match? I remember him saying MYOPIA!! Why do you suppose that was if Myopia was not the IDEAL to emulate in his opinion at that time?!?

What I am saying here I firmly believe was the case of this early time. Am I trying to suggest the likes of Willie Campbell, HH Barker et al, those early journeymen, immigrant Scottish, English, multi-tasking (club professionals, teachers, clubmakers, greenkeepers) part-time architects who were the EMPLOYEES of those early private clubs had no raw talent, inherent talent or existing talent to do something truly excellent given loads of time and opportunity?  

Of course not! All I am saying is in that early time THEY did not have the time or the opportunity (or the remuneration---eg no one was willing to pay them to spend the time those "amateur/sportsmen" architects devoted for no pay to their famous "special" projects that took them years and sometimes decades) that those famous "amateur/sportsman" architects of the likes of Leeds, Emmet/Travis, Fowneses, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump HAD because of who they both were!

Is it possible to deny today that these things were true?

I, for one, don't think so.

TEP
The point of this thread, and the point of unraveling what happened at Merion, is to show the evolution of these great courses is not quite as simple as the current histories would have you believe. The current histories of Myopia & Merion have either completely ignored or largely understated the contributions of Campbell, Barker, Macdonald & Whigham. I think it is clear those unsung men had a great impact on those courses, and on the men regularly associated with those courses. It is much easier to perfect an existing course over a period of years than it is to create one from whole cloth.

[DMoriarty]

For those who apparently credit Leeds with all that was good about Myopia, what changes did Leeds make to the first nine holes laid out by Willie Campbell, and when did he make those changes?

[Tom MacWood]

What I am saying here I firmly believe was the case of this early time. Am I trying to suggest the likes of Willie Campbell, HH Barker et al, those early journeymen, immigrant Scottish, English, multi-tasking (club professionals, teachers, clubmakers, greenkeepers) part-time architects who were the EMPLOYEES of those early private clubs had no raw talent, inherent talent or existing talent to do something truly excellent given loads of time and opportunity?  

TEP
I think you are confused. Lumping Campbell and Barker together does a disservice to both. Willie Campbell was no journeyman pro. He was arguably the greatest golfer of his day. He was also a pioneer golf architect. He is largely responsible for introducing the game to Boston, and Boston is really where golf architecture first took off in America.

Barker was not your average immigrant professional. He was an amateur until he moved to the US. He was a British International, probably the most prestigious position one could reach in amateur golf. Other British and Scottish Internationals of Barker's era included Horace Hutchinson, John Low, HS Colt, Bernard Darwin, John Ball, Herbert Fowler, Harold Hilton, and CK Hutchison. He was no journeyman professional.

Campbell operated in the 1890s; Barker's most active period was between 1910 and 1914. Apples and oranges - two completely different periods of golf architecture. The men Barker collaborated with during his short stay reads like a who's who: Travis, Colt, Ross, Adair, Harban, Raynor, and Way.

[Tom MacWood]

What I am saying here I firmly believe was the case of this early time. Am I trying to suggest the likes of Willie Campbell, HH Barker et al, those early journeymen, immigrant Scottish, English, multi-tasking (club professionals, teachers, clubmakers, greenkeepers) part-time architects who were the EMPLOYEES of those early private clubs had no raw talent, inherent talent or existing talent to do something truly excellent given loads of time and opportunity?  

Of course not! All I am saying is in that early time THEY did not have the time or the opportunity (or the remuneration---eg no one was willing to pay them to spend the time those "amateur/sportsmen" architects devoted for no pay to their famous "special" projects that took them years and sometimes decades) that those famous "amateur/sportsman" architects of the likes of Leeds, Emmet/Travis, Fowneses, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump HAD because of who they both were!

Is it possible to deny today that these things were true?

I, for one, don't think so.

TEP
IMO this an oversimplification of golf architecture history. You always list these same names together even though each of them has a different story and different circumstances. Leeds did improve Myopia over a period of years and deserves credit, but he didn't begin with blank slate and Campbell deserves some credit. Emmet laid out GCGC around the turn of the century and was assisted by a professional. He did not work on the course over a period of years like Leeds at Myopia, and he went on to become a fee accepting golf architect in the mold of Barker or Ross. Travis did redesign GCGC over a period of three or four years (assisted by Barker), and he went on to become a fee accepting golf architect in the mold of Emmett, Barker and Ross.

Regarding the Fownses Oakmont was not considered a great course early on, in fact it was not until a major redesign 15 to 20 years after it was first laid out that it became nationally known. The history of Oakmont is unlike any of the other courses. The history of NGLA & Macdonald is well known. No project has ever been given the attention and it was recongized as a world class course from day one. It was also an example of wide collaboration: Whigham, Emmet, Travis, Low, Hutchinson and Sutherland.

Wilson did improve Merion over the years with the help of Flynn, a fee collecting architect in the mold of Travis & Ross. The jury is still out on if Wilson is responsible for the original routing or not. Crump hired HS Colt, the top architect in the world. He did not live to see the course completed therefore was not given the opportunity to improve the course over time a la Leeds or Fownes. There are other examples you did not mention: Ross at Pinehurst, Windeler at Brookline, Paton at Woking, Colt at Rye and Sunningdale, Adair at Eastlake, Sutherland at Dornoch and Coombe at County Down. To be given the opportunity to perfect a course over time does present certain advantages, but that should not take away from the golf architects who laid out very good courses in a realtively brief periond, like Barker, Ross, Mackenzie, Tilly, Simpson, Alison, etc, etc.

[TEPaul]

“For those who apparently credit Leeds with all that was good about Myopia, what changes did Leeds make to the first nine holes laid out by Willie Campbell, and when did he make those changes?”



Those are indeed the questions of the very early golf architectural history of Myopia’s golf course if a productive discussion is to be had on this website. Specifically, how different was the original nine hole course compared to the so-called Leeds “Long Nine” on which Myopia’s first US Open was played in 1898? Following that US Open Leeds felt the course had to be expanded to 18 holes which it was by 1900. It was tested by a number of expert players in 1900 and Myopia held the 1901 US Open on Leeds new 18 hole course. Myopia would also hold US Opens in 1905 and 1908. Leeds declined to have Myopia hold a US Amateur during this time citing the fact that the clubhouse (specifically the locker-room and accordant accommodation) was not sufficient to hold a US Amateur. This alone is a pretty good indication of part of Leeds’ thinking about golf and golfers of that time----his time.

It should also be noted that Myopia’s only club history book “Myopia, A Centennial Chronicle, 1875-1975” by Edward Weeks does not credit Willie Campbell with laying out the original nine hole course in 1894. It credits three Myopia members (Appleton, Merrill and Gardner) with laying out the original nine hole course in the spring of 1894. This information is referenced in the club’s early administrative records in what was called “The Run Book” (apparently an administrative term for a hunting club which Myopia was for 20 years before golf existed at the club). There is no mention of a connection of Willie Campbell to Myopia even though his name is mentioned in the book along with a few other early Scottish, English professionals who were so helpful an were responsible for teaching and promoting the game of golf in Boston in the 1890s. Interestingly, the history book does liberally mention all the other golf professionals and golf professional/greenskeepers who were at Myopia over the years including Robert White in the mid 1890 and certainly their beloved John Jones for whom the right side of #10 is named for—eg “Jonesville.”

How this subject of Myopia’s early architectural has begun (again) on this website is remarkably similar to how the subject of Merion’s early history began on here over six and a half years ago. The subject of Macdonald’s part in Merion’s early architectural history was begun with a thread by Tom MacWood entitled “Re: Macdonald and Merion” (Jan. 2003). This thread is entitled “Willie Campbell and Myopia” and it too is by Tom MacWood.

I firmly believe that anyone truly interested in investigating the details of a club’s architectural history should FIRST endeavor to establish a good working relationship with the subject club BEFORE attempting to discuss it on here comprehensively and intelligently otherwise things seem to devolve into unproductive speculation without end. I believed that about the primary Merion discussants and said so continuously. I believe it with Myopia and before I become involved in discussing Myopia’s early architectural history I insist on it. I have no problem with others discussing it on here amongst themselves but for me to get involved in a discussion on the early history of Myopia I insist on it as I have no desire to see the subject of Myopia’s early architectural history devolve into what the subject of Merion’s early architectural history devolved into over the last six and a half years, at least not with me being a part of it this time.

I’ve been to Myopia and I know the club and course really well, as I’ve taken the time to really study it and its history. I know its history book intimately and I have been involved with the club and its architectural and administrative “assets.” Myopia, however, is not Merion. Myopia is unquestionably far more private about their course and club and history than Merion is. I, for one, understand that about Myopia and I respect and honor Myopia’s wishes that way. If others don’t or don’t see it that way, I don’t want to be part of it on here.

I would be glad, however, to preface with what I know about that original nine, what I know about the land and the history of it for golf and what I believe I understand is unknown about it and the difference of it (hole by hole) from Leeds’ 1898 “Long Nine” and then the 18 hole course Leeds created by 1900 which is essentially the same golf course that is there today.

[Tom MacWood]

I’ve been to Myopia and I know the club and course really well, as I’ve taken the time to really study it and its history. I know its history book intimately and I have been involved with the club and its architectural and administrative “assets.” Myopia, however, is not Merion. Myopia is unquestionably far more private about their course and club and history than Merion is. I, for one, understand that about Myopia and I respect and honor Myopia’s wishes that way. If others don’t or don’t see it that way, I don’t want to be part of it on here.

I would be glad, however, to preface with what I know about that original nine, what I know about the land and the history of it for golf and what I believe I understand is unknown about it and the difference of it (hole by hole) from Leeds’ 1898 “Long Nine” and then the 18 hole course Leeds created by 1900 which is essentially the same golf course that is there today.

I don't follow you. Are you saying you know what Leeds did but are unable to tell us or are you saying you don't know or are you trying to say something else?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom P

I believe it must have been about a year ago when under another topic I mentioned Willie Campbell being connected to Myopia. But I could not confirm that he did the design as he was there for less than a year. Not certain, if my post was addressed to you or Mike.

Melvyn

[DMoriarty]

Here is another article confirming that Campbell laid out 9 holes at Myopia in 1894.  Boston Journal, June 19, 1894.



While the copy is difficult, I believe the first paragraph reads:  

It has been but a few days since the new links at Myopia were laid out by but the professional Campbell, but so keen are the members of the club that the first open handicap match took place yesterday.  It was an unqualified success and it is but the fore runner of many to come.  

Again, for those who apparently credit Leeds with all that was good about Myopia, what changes did Leeds make to the first nine holes laid out by Willie Campbell, and when did he make those changes?


______________________________________________

It has been suggested that only those with a well established relationship with these clubs are qualified to research and analyze these clubs' history.   Is this anything but barely veiled snobbery?   It is not as if these clubs are public libraries where we can just walk in and look at what they have.  Often the only way to get through the door is to have been born inside.   With this approach we'd be stuck with only what the clubs tell us, accurate or not.   One could not contradict them for fear of having the relationship severed.

Don't get me wrong.  These clubs can do whatever they want with sources of information that they own and have never made public.  I have no idea why they'd want to hide information primarily of historical importance only, but that is for them to decide, not me.   But it is not for to them to decide who researches, analyzes, and discusses their history.   To suggest otherwise is preposterous.

As for this discussion group, I propose a general working rule:

If a poster is not willing or able to back up CLAIMS of fact with VERIFIABLE support, then he or she has no business posting their unverified claims.  

If they choose nonetheless to post unverified claims, they should expect those claims to be challenged and should expect demands for the supporting information.   They should also realize that their unverified claims might put the clubs in question in a very awkward position by creating the impression that the clubs have something to hide.

In short, I am not interested in any more "discussions" where TEPaul (or anyone else) dictates his version of the history to us without offering any verifiable evidence and we are expected to accept his word as gospel without questioning his version and without being given an opportunity to verify and vet his claims.    

In this case we are talking about events that happened over a century and a decade ago.   Surely none of us has any better personal insight into what happened in 1894 as any other.   If we are going to accept this history by club dictate approach, then perhaps we need a new section of the website where posters take a DNA test to establish the correct lineage before they are allowed to post.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I think it would be just the opposite of what Tom Paul asks, and the evidence is on the Merion threads. Tom and Wayne and Mike were too close to the subject to remain objective when it came to assessing new information, especially information that they did not previously have in their possession.

The endeavors here do not rewrite the history of these clubs, and none of the clubs whose lineage have come under review have asked for any such rewrite, therefore none of this has any bearing on these clubs as they are not involved in the search. This is only amateur forensic history that harms no one, but if there should be some incredibly important new information that comes to light it should be presented to these clubs so they can do with it what they will.

[Tom MacWood]

David
I don't think we need a rule, its just a case of common sense. When someone is unable or unwilling to back up their historical claim I simply disregard it. For example the disjointed quote from the April 1911 MCC report is worthless as far as I'm concerned. And regarding Myopia's history book I consider it highly suspect due to the fact they had no knowledge Campbell even worked for the club. Every major newspaper in the country (NY Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, etc) reported Campbell was playing out of Myopia for a good year or more. British Golf Illustrated knew he worked at Myopia, and so did Kirkaldy and Herd.

Jim
I'm not sure who you believe are the amateurs and professionals, but if the professionals are the official historians of Merion for example, I would say the amateur (David) produced a better written and more thoroughly researched account by many magnitudes. In fact as a general rule club histories are not very good from a historical or a golf architectural point of view (there are exceptions of course). And I don't think club's requesting or not requesting their histories be re-written has anything to do with it. Its been my experience most clubs appreciate new information - and a well written, well researched essay - no matter if they requested or not. The truth is the truth, and it shouldn't matter where it comes from.

[DMoriarty]

David
I don't think we need a rule, its just a case of common sense. When someone is unable or unwilling to back up their historical claim I simply disregard it. For example the disjointed quote from the April 1911 MCC report is worthless as far as I'm concerned. And regarding Myopia's history book I consider it highly suspect do the fact they had no knowledge Campbell even worked for the club. Every major newspaper in the country (NY Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, etc) reported Campbell was playing out of Myopia for a good year or more. British Golf Illustrated knew he worked at Myopia, and so did Kirkaldy and Herd.

Yes it is common sense, but some around here seem to think that this type of behavior is just fine, and I am not just referring to those who have done this, but also those who have defended it.  If a general working rule keeps the peace then perhaps it would do more good than harm.
__________________________________________________________________________

Here is an article about The Philadelphia Country Club from the Philadelphia Inquirer, April, 3, 1897.  I presume that this is the other Campbell.  Interesting how it is the committee credited, with suggestions from the two pros.     Tom do you know if Gillane did any other design work?   I think we know the other Campbell did some. 

[Joe Bausch]

Here is an article about The Philadelphia Country Club from the Philadelphia Inquirer, April, 3, 1897.  I presume that this is the other Campbell.  Interesting how it is the committee credited, with suggestions from the two pros.     Tom do you know if Gillane did any other design work?   I think we know the other Campbell did some. 

C'mon David, you're getting as bad as me by putting up articles that others have already posted!

[DMoriarty]

Here is an article about The Philadelphia Country Club from the Philadelphia Inquirer, April, 3, 1897.  I presume that this is the other Campbell.  Interesting how it is the committee credited, with suggestions from the two pros.     Tom do you know if Gillane did any other design work?   I think we know the other Campbell did some.  

C'mon David, you're getting as bad as me by putting up articles that others have already posted!

It's not the same article at all.  Mine has those cute yellow boxes, and is therefore far superior.

For what it's worth,  the other Campbell (who often went by William Campbell) ended up in Colorado  at the Town and Gown Club, he was the professional there.  He was also reportedly quite a singer.  A baritone.   Joe,  I have an article somewhere about the course, unless you think you already posted it.

[Note:  Changed name of club from Cap and Gown and can't remember if he designed it]

[TEPaul]

“Again, for those who apparently credit Leeds with all that was good about Myopia, what changes did Leeds make to the first nine holes laid out by Willie Campbell, and when did he make those changes?”


I already addressed this question from post #103 in post #106. The question is asked again in post #109. The same poster asked it again. Why is that? Is there something about my explanation in post #106 he doesn’t understand? Is there anything in my post #106 anyone doesn’t understand other than Tom MacWood who never seems to admit to understanding anything I say on here?

As far as I can tell no one on this website could possibly answer that question (those questions) except me because I have taken the last few years to reestablish a close relationship (research and otherwise) with Myopia and to get to know that golf course and its history intimately from the club’s perspective.

If anyone on here can provide that information and the answers to the question above---what changes did Leeds make to the first nine hole course (the club believes three member laid out that original nine hole course and not Willie Campbell) and when did he make them----then go for it and be my guest in answering those questions. But if they can’t and you want to know those answers from me, then I think most of you know where to find me.

In the meantime, I am not willing to perpetuate with Myopia the same nonsense that has been going on with the same two people on here with Merion for more than six and a half years.

If that’s what this thread is going to be, including with Moriarty’s “rules” or whatever, I have no interest at all in participating in it.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
You aren't being very cooperative. If you have the info please share it; if don't know thats fine too. The problems regarding Merion can be traced to a lack of trust and cooperation, and hopefully we can learn from our past mistakes.

In light of three separate contemporaneous reports crediting Campbell with the original nine at Myopia (along with Brookline and Essex County) and no reports crediting Appleton, Merrill and Gardner I think its fair to conclude the club history is wrong. The fact that the club history was unaware Campbell was the pro at Myopia should be eye opening. I don't think having Willie Campbell associated with the club is something to be ashamed of, in fact just the opposite.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom MacWood,
What I was saying is that the amateurs, the DM's of the GCA world, don't necessarily need close associations with clubs when doing research. I disagree with Tom Paul, mainly because I've seen what being 'close' to a club does, it begets a laborious and contentious back and forth between those who preach that they know 'everything' about a club and those who want to find out more.

Consider this:  "As far as I can tell no one on this website could possibly answer that question (those questions) except me because I have taken the last few years to reestablish a close relationship (research and otherwise) with Myopia and to get to know that golf course and its history intimately from the club’s perspective.
If anyone on here can provide that information and the answers to the question above---what changes did Leeds make to the first nine hole course (the club believes three member laid out that original nine hole course and not Willie Campbell) and when did he make them----then go for it and be my guest in answering those questions. But if they can’t and you want to know those answers from me, then I think most of you know where to find me."

I'm sorry, but after reading these two paragraphs I really don't care what this person knows. He's never going to openly contribute anything, it will have to be cajoled out of him in dribs and drabs, and the font could dry up if he feels the slightest provocation, or a whim overtakes him.

I'd rather see the info coming in the way it has been, no strings attached. It will never hurt these clubs if more is learned and then honestly reported.

[DMoriarty]

Tom MacWood,
What I was saying is that the amateurs, the DM's of the GCA world, don't necessarily need close associations with clubs when doing research. I disagree with Tom Paul, mainly because I've seen what being 'close' to a club does, it begets a laborious and contentious back and forth between those who preach that they know 'everything' about a club and those who want to find out more.

Consider this:  "As far as I can tell no one on this website could possibly answer that question (those questions) except me because I have taken the last few years to reestablish a close relationship (research and otherwise) with Myopia and to get to know that golf course and its history intimately from the club’s perspective.
If anyone on here can provide that information and the answers to the question above---what changes did Leeds make to the first nine hole course (the club believes three member laid out that original nine hole course and not Willie Campbell) and when did he make them----then go for it and be my guest in answering those questions. But if they can’t and you want to know those answers from me, then I think most of you know where to find me."

I'm sorry, but after reading these two paragraphs I really don't care what this person knows. He's never going to openly contribute anything, it will have to be cajoled out of him in dribs and drabs, and the font could dry up if he feels the slightest provocation, or a whim overtakes him.

I'd rather see the info coming in the way it has been, no strings attached. It will never hurt these clubs if more is learned and then honestly reported.

Jim,  Well said.   

Again, for those who apparently credit Leeds with all that was good about Myopia, what changes did Leeds make to the first nine holes laid out by Willie Campbell, and when did he make those changes?

No need for anyone to address my question without answering it.  Would anyone like to provide any verifiable facts that might begin answer the question? 

Reportedly, William Campbell laid out the first nine holes at Myopia.  I am unaware of any verifiable information that contradicts this. 

So again, what changes (if any) did Leeds make to the first nine holes laid out by Willie Campbell, and when did he make those changes?

[Phil_the_Author]

Jim,

I must say that I disagree with what I believe you are TRYING to say when you wrote, "Tom MacWood, What I was saying is that the amateurs, the DM's of the GCA world, don't necessarily need close associations with clubs when doing research..."

It isn't that the "DM's of the GCA world," and in this I consider myself among that group, NEED a close relationship, but it is FAR better that they have one. It opens doors, literally, to the rooms where board minutes and blueprints are kept. There are many examples of where newspaper and magazine articles provide information that not only disagrees with what a course has seen fit to record in "official histories" but that are the correct versions. There are many, many examples of newspaper and magazine reports where the exact opposite has occurred. Far more often than not, the history that a club has kept is correct.

Let me give you an example of a whopper. In September of 1928, a reporter in the Atlanta Constittion wrote that Tillinghast designed the courses at Olympia Fields! Anyone here care to agree with that?

It is always best to approach a golf club, even if by mail or telephone only. Introduce yourself and explain the what and why that you are researching there history. Often times they will send you information or loan you items for your research and they always appreciate when you can share, in as excited a mode as possible, what you have "discovered."

Does a researcher HAVE  to do this? No, but he is definitely at a big disadvantage if he doesn't...

[Tom MacWood]

Jim
I agree with you.

Phil
I agree with you too. IMO there is no reason not to contact clubs directly when seeking info, and in my experience 95% they are quite helpful. Unfortunately I don't believe that is what TEP is referring to. He believes DM should have sought permission from Merion before writing his essay or I should have sought permission from PV or Ohio State or Myopia or whomever before writing anything I've written.

[TEPaul]

“IMO there is no reason to contact clubs directly when seeking info, and in my experience 95% they are quite helpful. Unfortunately I don't believe that is what TEP is referring to. He believes DM should sought permission from Merion before writing his essay or I should have sought permission from PV or Ohio State or Myopia before writing anything on GCA.”


Tom:

Unfortunately for you that is not what I’m referring to at all; Permission to put something about a club’s history on Golfclubatlas.com’s “In My Opinion” section is something I doubt any of these clubs would even comment on, although certainly some from Merion commented on the essay “The Missing Faces of Merion” after it was put on this website. To say they were unimpressed with it would be quite an understatement. Most just thought it was a complete stretch of logic and not comprehensively researched in that it did not contain necessary information that was found later at one of the clubs here.

What I believe with establishing a good working research relationship with subject clubs is precisely what Phil Young said below, particularly his last sentence:





“It isn't that the "DM's of the GCA world," and in this I consider myself among that group, NEED a close relationship, but it is FAR better that they have one. It opens doors, literally, to the rooms where board minutes and blueprints are kept. There are many examples of where newspaper and magazine articles provide information that not only disagrees with what a course has seen fit to record in "official histories" but that are the correct versions. There are many, many examples of newspaper and magazine reports where the exact opposite has occurred. Far more often than not, the history that a club has kept is correct.


Does a researcher HAVE to do this? No, but he is definitely at a big disadvantage if he doesn't...”



Lastly, Jim Kennedy said the following the other day. I agree with that too.


“This is only amateur forensic history that harms no one, but if there should be some incredibly important new information that comes to light it should be presented to these clubs so they can do with it what they will.”




If some “In My Opinion” piece or some discussion on some thread on here produces some incredibly important new information it should be presented to these clubs if they have never been aware of it before and I would expect they would consider it in the context of their histories unless there is some good reason from their own contemporaneous records not to. With Myopia there seems to be a good reason not to consider that Willie Campbell routed their original nine hole course----eg because the club’s executive committee recorded when they did it that three members did that themselves and very likely before Campbell got off the boat from Scotland.

It is probably possible and even very likely that both accounts are true-----Myopia’s executive committee administrative records and some of those newspaper articles.

Consider, for instance, that in this case David Moriarty’s interpretation of the definition of “laid out” in those newspaper articles meant just building or constructing and not planning!  It’s possible and perhaps very likely that Appleton, Merrill and Gardner and Myopia got the fresh-off-the-boat Willie Campbell (particularly since he seems to have had an important sponsor in Thomas) to build something on the tees and greens they had staked out (a plan or routing) the club executive committee reported those three members had staked out themselves as soon as the snow melted in the spring of 1894 (March).

It’s not that surprising, at least not to me, if that were the case, that the club did not record in their executive committee records some of the manual labor that Willie Campbell may've done as soon as he got off the boat and that went into the plan for the course those members had staked out. At Merion, the executive committee did record the plans the Wilson Committee created in the winter and spring of 1911 before building and construction began even though the executive committee never said much or anything about the manual labor of the building and construction with that plan of say the Johnson Contractors or Pickering or even young William Flynn at that time.

Does that surprise some on Golfclubatlas.com today? Perhaps it does but it doesn’t surprise me and I don’t think it surprises Merion or Myopia either. But if a few on here expect Myopia to believe or consider that their club and those three Myopia members (Appleton, Merrill and Gardner) had been waiting patiently for Willie Campbell, the wonder of all golf architectural wonders, to step off the boat in his first time in America to show them all how to stake out tees and greens and a nine hole routing, then I would expect Myopia probably wouldn't take that very seriously at all. Particularly since R.M. Appleton, the Master of the Myopia Fox Hounds (a position that is akin in a hunt club to the president of a golf course) already had a six hole golf course of his own on his own massive farm----Appleton Farm, which appears to be the oldest farm held by a single family in America.

[Tom MacWood]

I corrected what I wrote, I meant to say, "IMO there is no reason not to contact clubs directly when seeking info, and in my experience 95% they are quite helpful."

[TEPaul]

"I corrected what I wrote, I meant to say, "IMO there is no reason not to contact clubs directly when seeking info, and in my experience 95% they are quite helpful."


Tom:

In that case, you and I are in complete agreement, and I see no reason to say more about it other than that is what you should've done with Merion over six and a half years ago and it's what you should have done with Myopia over a year ago. Had you done that with those two clubs, who knows, maybe you would've found that it and they too would have been 95% HELPFUL to you! It's what I did with Merion many years ago and with Myopia two years ago after not having been at that club for for close to fifty years since going to school in Boston for seven years. Just remember, it's never too late. You should do it now if you have this interest in the histories of Merion and Myopia you seem to have.

But if you think you can answer the important questions above of how the original nine holes of Myopia differs from Leeds' 1898 "Long Nine" and then the Leeds 18 hole course completed in 1900 then by all means go right ahead and answer it because if you can why would you need my help answering those questions?

[Tom MacWood]

If some “In My Opinion” piece or some discussion on some thread on here produces some incredibly important new information it should be presented to these clubs if they have never been aware of it before and I would expect they would consider it in the context of their histories unless there is some good reason from their own contemporaneous records not to. With Myopia there seems to be a good reason not to consider that Willie Campbell routed their original nine hole course----eg because the club’s executive committee recorded when they did it that three members did that themselves and very likely before Campbell got off the boat from Scotland.

It is probably possible and even very likely that both accounts are true-----Myopia’s executive committee administrative records and some of those newspaper articles.

Consider, for instance, that in this case David Moriarty’s interpretation of the definition of “laid out” in those newspaper articles meant just building or constructing and not planning!   It’s possible and perhaps very likely that Appleton, Merrill and Gardner and Myopia got the fresh-off-the-boat Willie Campbell (particularly since he seems to have had an important sponsor in Thomas) to build something on the tees and greens they had staked out (a plan or routing) the club executive committee reported those three members had staked out themselves as soon as the snow melted in the spring of 1894 (March).

It’s not that surprising, at least not to me, if that were the case, that the club did not record in their executive committee records some of the manual labor that Willie Campbell may've done as soon as he got off the boat and that went into the plan for the course those members had staked out. At Merion, the executive committee did record the plans the Wilson Committee created in the winter and spring of 1911 before building and construction began even though the executive committee never said much or anything about the manual labor of the building and construction with that plan of say the Johnson Contractors or Pickering or even young William Flynn at that time.

Does that surprise some on Golfclubatlas.com today? Perhaps it does but it doesn’t surprise me and I don’t think it surprises Merion or Myopia either. But if a few on here expect Myopia to believe or consider that their club and those three Myopia members (Appleton, Merrill and Gardner) had been waiting patiently for Willie Campbell, the wonder of all golf architectural wonders, to step off the boat in his first time in America to show them all how to stake out tees and greens and a nine hole routing, then I would expect Myopia probably wouldn't take that very seriously at all. Particularly since R.M. Appleton, the Master of the Myopia Fox Hounds (a position that is akin in a hunt club to the president of a golf course) already had a six hole golf course of his own on his own massive farm----Appleton Farm, which appears to be the oldest farm held by a single family in America.

TEP
Yours is an interesting theory, not very logical, but interesting. Are those the same administrative records that have no record of Willie Campbell working for the club? It is also worth noting of those three Myopia members only Appleton played in the first golf event held there June 18.