[TEPaul]

"TEP
I wrote that, not Jim Kennedy. Rome wasn't built in a day, often the clubs themselves are the last to acknowledge an attribution, there is a lot of emotional attachment to these well established legends. You are Exhibit A for that phenomenon."


Tom MacWood:

Since you know none of the memberships of the clubs you say have a lot of emotional attachment to these well established legends it would be impossible for your remark to have any credibility, and so it should be considered by all as total speculation. The truth is with Merion just about the entire administration and numerous members were fascinated and expectant that something new might be uncovered that proved Macdonald had more to do with the creation of their East course than they ever knew. They were all very disappointed in the lack of logic of what they read on here with that essay and the follow-up discussion on that subject that asserted such things as Macdonald routed and designed Merion East or was some driving force behind its creation. It was nothing they did not already know other than the fact that Wilson actually went abroad in 1912 which was of no consequence to what he and his committee did in 1911.

And with Myopia, it appears they did not know about those articles mentioning Willie Campbell in 1894 but they see no reason to assume their own administrative records were inaccurate as to who laid out that original nine in 1894. As for the rest of Myopia's architectural history, since the course was very largely changed by Leeds from 1896 on they feel that original nine is largely irrelevent now.

[Mike Cirba]

I'm confused, didn't we find out that H.H. Barker designed Merion?

Who's this Macdonald guy?  


To the larger point, I think that primary sources are obviously the best, but believe that lacking those, news articles definitely can provide tremendous historical value.   They are evidence...not evidence that should be weighed higher than club records, if those exist, but worthwhile nonetheless.

I think great examples exist at Philmont, ACCC (HJ Tweedie), and some other places that were cited.

However, they can also be dead wrong.

I have a news article that says Fred Pickering laid out Merion.   Left to itself, one would get a very false impression of the history of that course.

Concord CC (fka Brinton Lake CC) was mentioned here earlier.   I have a local news article from opening day that says it was laid out by the superintendent and the pro of the course, not William Flynn.

Thankfully, I did a deeper dive and found other articles that clearly cite Flynn, and even discuss the holes he designed.

I think what I'm saying is let's keep looking, and I think some tremendous materials have been found in recent years, but where it exists, primary, contemporaneous source material of the clubs themselves should be the final arbiter, such as was found recently at North Shore.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I think Ron Forse can provide the details.

You can contact him, or, if you want, I'll contact him and try and get clarification.

It's been alleged that Strong redid the 3rd green at Mountain Ridge and I'd like to learn more about whether or not he was involved, when and why ?

Same with AWT and # 7

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike Cirba,

That's a very sane approach. I think it was magazine and newspaper articles that helped you w/Pocono Manor, no? 

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I'm not sure I'd use the word "sane" for any of us who join these ongoing attribution thread debates. 

Newspaper accounts were VERY helpful getting us on the right track during our research with Cobbs Creek, which we were able to then confirm with actual primary source artifacts like the Golf Association of Philadelphia meeting minutes, the Original approved routing map at the Fairmount Park Commission archives, and the FPC meeting minutes at the city archives.

One thing we definitely learned that I think is more true back then than today is that the building of these old courses, especially the important ones,  had the involvement of many hands and minds.

[Bill Brightly]

Pat,

I'd love tohear what Ron said about the involvemnt of Ross and Strong. I play there two or three times a year and it never semed likea Ross course to me. I think a few holes may have been lost across the street where their club house and drivng range now sits.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
You're right, 'sane' was a bad choice of words. 

But it seems to me that there has been a lot of info found in old articles and that info has led to some interesting developments.
Take the recent North Shore CC thread. It took some digging on Steve Shaffer's part in the NYSHS archives to reach some sort of final analysis, and others like George Bahto and Ron Forse (if I forgot anyone, too bad  ) had thought Raynor's hand was present, but it was a slew of articles from various sources (posted by TMac) that got the ball rolling on that thread.

I was amazed at how rapidly everyone was ready to throw TMac under the bus when he posted those articles. It seems that protecting Dr. Quirin was more important than searching for the truth.  I don't know Dr. Quirin, but the gentlemen I do know who have Dr. in their title don't shy away from sources of knowledge, they evaluate them for their worth, and don't waste their time trying to belittle the person offering them up. That sort of pettiness is driven by personal agenda, and is the realm of small men.   

   



 

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I'm impressed, on your Post #26, once you got to the 'larger point,' you made a great deal of sense. Matter of fact, it sounds like one of my posts on where to research for maximum results. I guess if I keep at you long enough the right process rubs off eventually---eg to do a really competent job of reasearching/analyzing a course's architectural history a researcher/analyst must establish a good relationship with the subject club.

On Concord GC (aka Brinton Lakes) all one really needs to do is just look at Flynn's detailed plan of the course to determine who designed it originally. It was built to his plans, as most were.

[Tom MacWood]

And with Myopia, it appears they did not know about those articles mentioning Willie Campbell in 1894 but they see no reason to assume their own administrative records were inaccurate as to who laid out that original nine in 1894.

Like I said, these clubs (and you) are often the last to acknowledge new attributions. As far as Merion is concerned there is more than enough reasonable doubt to say that attribution is yet to be determined, a significant development IMO.

[TEPaul]

"Like I said, these clubs (and you) are often the last to acknowledge new attributions. As far as Merion is concerned there is more than enough reasonable doubt to say that attribution is yet to be determined, a significant development IMO."


I couldn't disagree more. As I've mentioned many times, if any competent researcher/analyst read or considered the original administrative records of Merion (or Myopia) there is no way they would come to the conclusion you did above. I'm not saying you're an incompetent researcher but the fact remains you have never been to either club and you have never seen their original adminstrative records. You can keep on ignoring, discounting or rationalizing away that reality but this is a fact you can not avoid.

[Tom MacWood]

I couldn't disagree more. As I've mentioned many times, if any competent researcher/analyst read or considered the original administrative records of Merion (or Myopia) there is no way they would come to the conclusion you did above. I'm not saying you're an incompetent researcher but the fact remains you have never been to either club and you have never seen their original adminstrative records. You can keep on ignoring, discounting or rationalizing away that reality but this is a fact you can not avoid.
 

You should have added objective competent researcher/analyst. There is the rub. For whatever reason some of these clubs are so paranoid about who gets to see those administrative records (and what might result) that they only allow access to a few insiders, and they often come with a strong attachment to the legend. The result is people like Willie Campbell, HH Barker and CBM get buried in history, and transcribed versions of the records get doctored. I should say get buried until some objective outsiders unbury them. The other problem is these records are often incomplete, and therefore they give an incomplete picture. As an example Myopia had no idea (and evidently no record) Willie Campbell was the club's first professional. That is a pretty big hole.

[TEPaul]

"For whatever reason some of these clubs are so paranoid about who gets to see those administrative records (and what might result) that they only allow access to a few insiders, and they often come with a strong attachment to the legend. The result is people like Willie Campbell, HH Barker and CBM get buried in history, and transcribed versions of the records get doctored. I should say get buried until some objective outsiders unbury them. The other problem is these records are often incomplete, and therefore they give an incomplete picture. As an example Myopia had no idea (and evidently no record) Willie Campbell was the club's first professional. That is a pretty big hole."


Tom MacWood:


I don't know what clubs you're referring to but none of what you said above is true of Merion or Myopia. Apparently you find it convenient to keep saying that on here because you have never been to either club and consequently your knowledge of what they have and what they know seems to be quite lacking.

As far as adding the qualifier "competent" researcher, that is true and any competent researcher would never think to not analyze first-hand everything, including what's at the clubs. And do to that one has to go to these clubs and establish a relationship with them.  For some reason you seem to want to rationalize away that requirement and reality by claiming that would somehow make you or any other researcher less than objective about the subject.

That rationalization is just an excuse on your part for not analyzing first-hand all material involving a course's architectural history.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You stated, "For whatever reason some of these clubs are so paranoid about who gets to see those administrative records (and what might result) that they only allow access to a few insiders, and they often come with a strong attachment to the legend. The result is people like Willie Campbell, HH Barker and CBM get buried in history..."

I have no idea how many clubs you have had the privilege to gain access to their "administrative records" but I can tell you that it has been my experience, after being given the privilege of access to a good number of clubs records that EVERY signle one of them without exception told me BEFORE I started, "We're only interested in the truth regardless of who did what." Did a number of them, if not all, enjoy refering to themselves as being designed by "so-and-so"? Undeniably yes. Did the ones that learned that it was another architect who designed their course become angry and upset about it? Not a single time.

So I disagree with your statement.

You also stated, "and transcribed versions of the records get doctored. I should say get buried until some objective outsiders unbury them..." Once again you ascvribe a deliberate action here and it has been my experience that I have yet to see attribution, information or anything at all hidden either deliberately or not.

You also stated, "The other problem is these records are often incomplete, and therefore they give an incomplete picture..." With this I'll agree; but remember, they are only "incomplete" from the perspective of the person interested in golf architecture. Most club histories are CLUB histories and not COURSE histories because that is what the membership is really more concerned about on the whole.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
I said some clubs, not all clubs, and I don't recall saying anything about angry. Now I have observed some odd reactions from people who are dedicated to a single architect, reaction that seem to border on angry. Your reaction to Burbeck being given some credit at Bethpage comes to mind.

[TEPaul]

"You should have added objective competent researcher/analyst. There is the rub. For whatever reason some of these clubs are so paranoid about who gets to see those administrative records (and what might result) that they only allow access to a few insiders, and they often come with a strong attachment to the legend. The result is people like Willie Campbell, HH Barker and CBM get buried in history, and transcribed versions of the records get doctored."



Tom MacWood:

That statement looks like you are saying or implying that Merion and Myopia are so paranoid about their architects or their architectural histories that they limit who gets to see their administrative records (and what might result) that they only allow access to a few insiders.

Is that what you are saying or implying on here about Merion and Myopia?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

While I know very little personally about the origins of Myopia besides what I've read here, isn't it possible that your Wilsonian interpretation of "laid out" might apply?

In other words, might it not be very possible that the 3 club members routed the golf course that spring, and once Campbell arrived/was employed, he physically laid it out for them on the ground, building greens and such?

I thought there might be some credence to your "wait for the expert" theory, thinking that indeed he'd have more knowledge, but then I recalled that Appleton had already done a course on his own property, and then I saw a schematic from 1898 of the original Merion course designed by Campbell.

The latter was as crude and geometric as anything done by amateurs in those days, so really, other than perhaps some knowledge of particulars in grasses, etc., which is dubious on inland soils, what was the real value add?

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
I believe you were the one that is continually mentioning Merion and Mypoia, not me. You can interpret my words any way you'd like.

Mike
If you know very little about the origins Myopia why do you find the need to interject your opinion about its origin on this thread? Your understanding of the timeline is different than mine. There is multipage thread floating around here somewhere, with quite a bit of supporting documentation - did you read that thread and share your opinion on it?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

It's been awhile since I read that thread and I don't pretend to know the answer, nor do I recall any conclusions being proven.   I do recall trying to help out and did produce Willie Campbell's dated immigration document, so I was certainly impartial.

I was asking you if it's possible that the members routed the course and then had Campbell "lay it out on the ground", in Wilsonian fashion?

Is it possible?

Why or why not?

[TEPaul]

TEP
I believe you were the one that is continually mentioning Merion and Mypoia, not me. You can interpret my words any way you'd like.


Tom MacWood:

This is your statement;

"You should have added objective competent researcher/analyst. There is the rub. For whatever reason some of these clubs are so paranoid about who gets to see those administrative records (and what might result) that they only allow access to a few insiders, and they often come with a strong attachment to the legend. The result is people like Willie Campbell, HH Barker and CBM get buried in history, and transcribed versions of the records get doctored."



Tom MacWood, If you are not saying or implying in that statement that it is Merion and Myopia that you think are so paranoid then why did you mention in that same remark that the result (of paranoia) is that people like Willie Campbell, HH Barker and CBM get buried in history, and transcribed versions of records get doctored? If it was not Merion or Myopia you were referring to what clubs are you referring to that did doctor transcribed versions of their records and bury the contributions to their courses of Campbell, HH Barker and CBM?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Once again you simply refuse to read what was written and go off in other directions.

You responded to me, "Phil, I said some clubs, not all clubs..."

Well Tom, I didn't say ALL clubs either... I said that EVERY club whose records I examined...

You continued, "and I don't recall saying anything about angry..."

Once again Tom, I didn't state that YOU DID. In refering to the clubs where I showed them that the "architect of record" was not who they thought I said, "Did the ones that learned that it was another architect who designed their course become angry and upset about it? Not a single time."

You followed up with "Now I have observed some odd reactions from people who are dedicated to a single architect, reaction that seem to border on angry. Your reaction to Burbeck being given some credit at Bethpage comes to mind..."

You are entitled to your opinion, but you obviously have no conception whatsoever as to my feelings on the matter as ANGER is MOST DEFINITELY NOT one of them.

So now I would like to know how many clubs "administrative records," including board minutes, you have examined. I won't ask you to name them as that wouldn't be proper, but I am curious if you'd care to answer.

[TEPaul]

"While I know very little personally about the origins of Myopia besides what I've read here,"



Mike Cirba:

The entire original nine hole course (1894) of Myopia still remains somewhat mysterious. Arguably only 2-4 greens remain from that original nine hole course and of them only two of those holes are today the same as they were on that original nine hole course----eg #8 and #9.

The club's administrative records (board meeting minutes oddly called "The Run Book" probably because of Myopia's initial origins as just a hunt and polo club) clearly state R.M "Bud" Appleton, "Squire" Merrill and A.P. Gardner staked out (routed) the original nine in the early spring (logically March) of 1894.

Since those records are contemporaneous to the event I see no reason at all to assume they are incorrect and either does Myopia. Willie Campbell may've done something for Myopia in 1894, hence a couple of Boston Globe newspaper accounts from 1894 to that effect, even though it seems  he actually worked directly for The Country Club (Brookline) at that time, but this (those Boston Globe articles mentioning Campbell) does not deny the fact that those three club members routed the course themselves in the early spring of 1894.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Thanks for the additional information.   I didn't realize that so llittle of the original nine holes remains.

What I should have stated in my post above is that I have personally done very little in the way of research on Myopia beyond scanning for some news articles, and never having seen or played the course, I'm feeling at a disadvantage in trying to understand the particulars of the previous threads that discussed hole locations, routing particulars, etc..

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Thanks for the additional information.   I didn't realize that so llittle of the original nine holes remains.
What I should have stated in my post above is that I have personally done very little in the way of research on Myopia beyond scanning for some news articles, and never having seen or played the course, I'm feeling at a disadvantage in trying to understand the particulars of the previous threads that discussed hole locations, routing particulars, etc.."



MikeC:

At this point, I'm not sure anyone knows that much about that original 1894 nine hole course of Myopia. The fact is it is not the same nine as the 1896-1898 nine Herbert Leeds created for the original Myopia US Open (1898) known as "The Long Nine." Some of the holes might be somewhat similar but there seem to be at least three from that original nine (1894) nine that are somewhat unknown. And then for the next three Opens at Myopia in the first thirteen years of the USGA Myopia had the 18 holes they have today, all by Leeds.

The Myopia 1975 history book by author Edward Weeks, a long time prominent Myopia member and I believe the editor of something like Atlantic Monthly was a bit sketchy on the subject of where some of the original holes where although there are a few keys in the records as to where they were and why they were where they were originally and why they weren't originally in a certain place some assume they were.

Tom MacWood may think he knows something about that original nine routed by those three members from Weeks book and a couple of 1894 Boston newspaper articles but beyond that there is no possible way he could know more without ever having been to Myopia. And as he usually does on here he refuses to even admit what he doesn't know about Myopia. I suppose he refuses to admit that to give the impression on here he may know more than he possibly could.  

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I don't want to go too far afield here just on Myopia and perhaps I should go look up that old thread, but how much of the "Long Nine" was preserved into the eighteen hole course Leeds put together?

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I don't want to go too far afield here just on Myopia and perhaps I should go look up that old thread, but how much of the "Long Nine" was preserved into the eighteen hole course Leeds put together?"


MikeC:

Basically all of it except the original 4th (the Alps) was played from about the present 10th tee blind over the hill to the present 11th green. Today there are two holes from that tee to that green. But as I said earlier the original 1894 nine was not entirely the same nine as Leed's original "Long Nine." The holes on the ridge (14,15,16) were not there in 1894.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()