News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike_Cirba

Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #125 on: July 23, 2008, 10:44:28 AM »
Tom,

Pickering also did construction work for Findlay at Lake Placid, Atlanta, Belmont (MA) and "others too numerous to mention" according to a news article at the time Merion East opened in 1912.

ANTHONYPIOPPI

Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #126 on: July 23, 2008, 10:51:02 AM »
At Lake Placid where Flynn was teaching tennis.

Anthony


Thomas MacWood

Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #127 on: July 23, 2008, 11:35:09 AM »
Tom,

Although the original course dates to 1896, the present course dates to 1904, with construction initiating in 1901.   

A club member, Alfred Howard, who was described as "the moving spirit of the club", was named the head of a committee to create a new golf course on land near the original course.

It opened a full 18 holes in 1904 at a playing distance of 6,147 yards, and reportedly in good condition after a full $12,000 was spent on it in 1903 alone.

The course had many natural features that were apparently well-utilized, including significant but reasonable elevation changes and a deep ravine.   Fred Pickering did the construction.

All of the holes were named, and the 13th green was a punchbowl.   Some of the names were derived from Civil War battles, such as "Little Round Top", and "Gettysburg", although I'm not sure why exactly.

From an account by Arthur Lockwood, himself a top golfer in Boston at the time and I believe a member;

"The officials of the club feel very grateful to the well known professionals Alex Findlay and Donald Ross, of the Oakley Country Club, for the many helpful suggestions given during the construction and laying out of the course."

"The club has engaged as professional, that promising young player Alex Ross, who has figured so prominently in the last two open championships."

"The present membership of the club is one hundred and sixty, and the limit has just been raised to two hundred.  The initiation fee is $20, with a similar sum for the annual subscription."


I'm not sure about Stiles involvement or later iterations of the course, but this is what was built initially.

Mike
Evidently Alfred Young was the club president at Woodland,and according to the reports I've seen the club was advised by experts when they expanded to 18, unnamed experts (Ross and Findlay?). This was from 1903 and I get the impression the course was being expanded from 9 to 18.

In 1915 they announced plans for a major redesign, no names. Perhaps AG Lockwood was involved or Wayne Stiles, who was practicing Landscape Architecture.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2008, 01:19:23 PM by Tom MacWood »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #128 on: July 23, 2008, 04:52:34 PM »
TEPaul,

I know that MacWood knows more than you do about Myopia for a number of reasons:

-- First, MacWood has made a number of points about Myopia that I have been able to track down and they check out.  It is obvious from your posts that most if not all of these points were entirely news to you.

-- Second, as usual your "research" (and I learn the term loosely with you) consists of extensive and blind reliance on Cornish and Whitten and the the club "history."   I think all but you must recognize by now that these may be good places to start, but that relying on these sources blindly is  fraught with peril.  Tom MacWood has again demonstrated this on this very thread.     I have a great idea for the archives.  Why not just reprint Cornish and Whitten and the club histories online and be done with it?   That is all you know. 

-- Third and more generally,   as far as I can tell, your methodology is not at all geared toward ever getting past a superficial and pre-ordained understanding when it comes to any course.   Whether your source be Wayne, Cornish and Whitten, club histories, rumor, innuendo, speculation, or just what you sense in your blue-blood, your sources are almost never FIRST HAND.   This by itself makes you pretty worthless when it comes to historical research.   Regurgitating someone else's conclusions or making up or guessing at your own unsupported conclusions does not make for historical research.   As a consequence, unless you happen to glom on to someone who knows what they are doing when it comes to knowing where to look and what to look for, you are pretty much useless.   

Isn't that what you were up to when you secretly approached me shortly after my Merion essay came out?   You were trying to sell-out your current writing partner and glom on to my research, weren't you?   


David Moriarty:

Obviously I don't think much of you either and I see no reason to discuss anything to do with architecture with you on here anymore, particularly after the charade you pulled on this website with Merion.

Everytime you write this I know exactly why you so don't want me to see  your supposed "Report" or its supposed support.   It is either full of questionable interpretations, or it is grounded squarely in my research and analysis.  Either way you will be exposed if it ever gets out. 

In fact, my guess is the long promised "point-by-point counterpoint" idea has been silently scrapped, and instead Wayne has quietly changed a few things in his 3960 page Merion chapter, and he is hoping that everyone will just forget about the promised rebuttal of the "90% of my essay that Wayne claimed was wrong."    Am I right?  I hope not.


Quote
I've offered to get MacWood involved in some of these things a number of times but he won't do it. Perhaps because you and Tom MacWood have a real inflated sense of your own importance you think these clubs are going to call you up and solicit your advice on their histories but I've rarely seen it work that way. One pretty much needs to get in touch with them and try to develop a relationship first. At least that's the way most of the rest of us have done it, unless or until one develops something of a respected reputation for this kind of thing as perhaps the likes Bob Labbance, Brad Klein, Dan Wexler, Goeff Shackelford, Jim Finegan, Bill Quirin and Philip Young have. Apparently you two don't agree with that or understand it. If that's the way you continue to approach this stuff I doubt either of you will be very productive.

Don't you understand that it is you, your rudeness, your arrogance, and your insistence on editorial control that makes Tom MacWood's involvement ultimately impossible.  This is also why I have  so little hope for the project myself.  It should be great, but your arrogance and insistence on running things and controlling things will doom it to failure.   Your injecting yourself into the Merion issues has accomplished nothing more than screwing them up.  Same goes for Myopia, and just about everything else you get involved with.    Why would the USGA project be any different?

Your ego is obviously more important than the USGA project to you, and that is really too bad.   Tom MacWood has a lot to offer on a number of topics.  So do others.  As for me, I have a little to offer on much narrower topics, and laid a pretty good groundwork for a few things.   But you are in the way of taking it to where it should be.   As usual.


Quote
I would have been be glad to tell Myopia that he would like to be in touch with them but it would help to know what it is he has before I do that. He won't even explain it, he continuously skirts the issue of Campbell every which way to Sunday. I don't believe any of these clubs are interested in dealing with people like you two just because you say you have something that can revise their architectural history.

This is nonsense.  You said exactly the opposite yesterday.   Tom MacWood need not jump through hoops for you.  You are not the gatekeeper.   We all can see he has information that Myopia ought to have if they care about their history.   You are the only thing between him and them.   Remove yourself.   For once step aside.   Be a facilitator instead of a parasite.  For once.

Plus, MacWood has told you plenty.  He laid it all out for you.  Most of what he has left out concerned sources only and he has even told you exactly where to most of those.  You are apparently incapable of even doing that for yourself.     The only reason you don't try to get Myopia in touch with him is YOUR ARROGANCE.    We all pay again for your arrogance.

Quote
That charade was pretty much the story with this whole Macdonald/Merion thing with you two. The club was initially pretty interested in seeing information that Macdonald had more to do with their course than they realized but after those who have something to do with that club actually saw your essay and the way you carried on in the discussions of it they weren't interested. These people aren't dumb, Moriarty, all of them are more than capable of recognizing completely tortured logic and a total lack of anything important to their course's architectural history. The way you developed your assumptions and conclusion in that essay is a joke to people who know that club and the history of its courses. Because of that there probably wont't be a next time in that type of attempt with any of these clubs familiar with this website.

Again Tom, I had (and have) information that really ought to be in Merion's hands.   I thought that we were heading in that direction, which is why I was entirely open with Wayne about everything addressed in the Part I.   Had you stayed out if it, we'd all know a lot more about Merion than we do right now.  Merion would has well.    But your arrogance stops things up again.

Quote
There's no need to say a thing to you on here anymore as far as I'm concerned, particularly about golf architecture but if you feel the need to call me a scumbag on here including underlining it and as long as you continue to try to mock me and my relationship with Merion, Myopia and the USGA Architecture Archive because I'm part of them, then it's pretty safe to say you'll hear from me. At least I'm involved with them and other clubs which is more than can be said for you and MacWood.

I don't enjoy calling you a scumbag or insulting you online, but I am in sort of a tough spot.   Through my research into Merion and through my dealings with you offline and on,  I know about which I speak.  I know what you knew, and I know what you said.  I also know what you have repeatedly lied to me and MacWood off the site about a number of things, including representations made by Merion, the USGA, and various specific officials at both.   And I know some of the things that you have done to those who were supposed to be your friends, most of which I have kept off here.   

Given what I know, I am convinced that I never will have anything to do with you, because you are entirely dishonest and untrustworthy and have little or nothing of substance to offer, at least when it comes to the history of gca.com.    The problem is, you insert yourself into everything, and it becomes impossible to pursue the subject without you getting in the way.  You are entirely a disruptive force when it comes to others researching and writing about golf course architecture.   I have tried to insult you and shame you and expose you into backing off.  But apparently you have no shame. 

Do the right thing for once in your life. Tom.  Back off.   Quit attacking MacWood.  Let him have some breathing room so he can accomplish something from which we will all benefit.   You owe it to all who have stood by you all these years, because the more MacWood is allowed to do, the more they will learn.  If not, what you gonna do? 

I wish your supposed friends would explain some of this to you.  They see it too, but they are apparently afraid to tell you.   Apparntly no one is willing to take the chance you will turn on them and try to ruin them like you have tried to to MacWood.   

 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #129 on: July 23, 2008, 05:15:00 PM »
David Moriarty:

That last post is really something. It's the most outrageous and totally untrue post you've ever made on here about me and Merion and Myopia, Tom MacWood, Wayne, whatever. And you accuse me of writing long and convoluted posts?? Jeeesus.

You really do need some help fella. I suggest you get it before continuing on this website.

You are so "out there" at this point I see no reason to repond to you again on here or anywhere else whether it be about golf architect or the endless insults you keep casting this way.

As for Tom MacWood, I'm quite certain he can take care of himself. I doubt he needs you to do it for him. MacWood is far more useful on here than you are or ever were but if and when I see him post something, particularly about the architectural histories of clubs and courses that I know and on which I disagree with him, I'm going to say so and there's not a damn thing you can do about that so probably the best policy is for you to simply shut up and go find some help out there somewhere for yourself before you continue on this website.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #130 on: July 23, 2008, 05:32:15 PM »
TomPaul,

Like it or not, everything in the post above is painfully true.   And I am not the only one who thinks it.  The view is fairly widely held.  I am just the only one who is willing to write it, and believe it or not I take no joy in that.   

As for MacWood, he doesnt need me to look out for him.  He will do what he does whether you continue to harrass and insult him.  As will I.  My concern is with the history of golf course architecture.  You are screwing that up big time.   You'v e already turned Merion's history into an absolute Joke.  You are well on your way with the USGA Archives.  Now Myopia?  I get the feeling that Oakmont is next.  Cirba and Bausch should thank their lucky stars that you are not interested in slumming it with the histories of public courses, otherwise we could write off the history of Cobbs as well.

 Why don't you go screw up the history of some crappy course?  That might actually accomplish something in some sort of wierd way. 



David Moriarty:

That last post is really something. It's the most outrageous and totally untrue post you've ever made on here about me and Merion and Myopia, Tom MacWood, Wayne, whatever. And you accuse me of writing long and convoluted posts?? Jeeesus.

You really do need some help fella. I suggest you get it before continuing on this website.

You are so "out there" at this point I see no reason to repond to you again on here or anywhere else whether it be about golf architect or the endless insults you keep casting this way.

As for Tom MacWood, I'm quite certain he can take care of himself. I doubt he needs you to do it for him. MacWood is far more useful on here than you are or ever were but if and when I see him post something, particularly about the architectural histories of clubs and courses that I know and on which I disagree with him, I'm going to say so and there's not a damn thing you can do about that so probably the best policy is for you to simply shut up and go find some help out there somewhere for yourself before you continue on this website.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2008, 05:35:25 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Tom Bagley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #131 on: July 23, 2008, 06:23:53 PM »
Oak Hill CC was and is a highly-regarded course within MA.  The original nine was by Stiles and opened in 1921.  The second nine was designed by Ross and opened on July 30, 1927 as described in Golf Illustrated, September 1927:

"The same day as the New England final there was an exhibition match
in Fitchburg between Tommy Armour and Johnny Farrell with a little
more at stake, in a sense, than any purely exhibition that has been seen
in many a day. It was to open up the new nine holes of the Oak Hill
Country Club, giving that club 18 holes, and the interest lay in the
fact that Armour and Farrell had established themselves as the foremost
pair of professionals in the world for this year. Armour had
won the National Open, as his big feat, but Farrell, through his victories
in the Metropolitan Open, the Eastern
Open, the Shawnee Open, the Wheeling Open,
the Massachusetts Open, the Pennsylvania
Open and the Philadelphia Open championships
had. by and large, stolen considerable of Armour's
thunder.
There was, consequently, a tenseness to their
exhibition match at Oak Hill which could be
felt by those who were cognizant of all the circumstances
and who could fee! that below the
surface these two were out for each other's
scalps fully as much as if a title and a big
purse were at stake. They scored 79 apiece in
the morning, with Armour one up on match
play, but that was a get-acquainted match. The
dour struggle took place in the afternoon and
I would not have missed it for a great deal.
Their play was magnificent, with Farrell in
the ascendant, for he scored a brilliant 70,
against a 73 for the National Open titleholder."

The 1935 Massachusetts Open at Oak Hill was so well-received that the winner, Gene Sarazen wrote to the MGA requesting that the 1936 Open be awarded to Oak Hill.  If I can figure how to post the articles from the Boston newspapers, I will.

Hope this adds to the discussion.

TEPaul

Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #132 on: July 23, 2008, 06:55:07 PM »
"My concern is with the history of golf course architecture.  You are screwing that up big time.   You'v e already turned Merion's history into an absolute Joke.  You are well on your way with the USGA Archives.  Now Myopia?  I get the feeling that Oakmont is next.  Cirba and Bausch should thank their lucky stars that you are not interested in slumming it with the histories of public courses, otherwise we could write off the history of Cobbs as well."


David Moriarty:

THAT---that remark above is something I'm never going to let you forget or deny. Not ever! You're trying to make a public mockery of something I truly care about and have invested a lot in. I can count on half the fingers of one hand the people I've truly despised in my life and you are one of them. Come on, you pathetic little self-impressed gnat, take me on in the world of golf and architecture and let's just see where the chips fall. I welcome it. But let's do that without bothering this website's discussion group with it any longer. Let's do it in the real world of people and places and clubs and courses. Are you OK with that or is this your only forum? It's not mine. ;)

wsmorrison

Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #133 on: July 23, 2008, 07:19:02 PM »
Our Merion history is not as Moriarty describes it.  He is completely out of touch.  The only manner in which his research was used was as an inducement to finding out the truth about the events during the move of the Merion Cricket Club course from Haverford to Ardmore.  It preceded Flynn's involvement, so prior to Moriarty's essay, we didn't address it with much depth or due diligence.  What was clear to anyone somewhat familiar with Merion's history could easily see that holes in his logic and the assumptions built upon assumptions approach he took.  It was those assumptions (poor and agenda driven) that caused us to look into the story to a much greater extent.  If only Moriarty wrote his essay in less conclusive terms and if only it wasn't presented and endorsed in the way it was, would it be understood for what it is...an incomplete and partially researched essay.  But he drew definitive conclusions that were, in the end, easy to disprove.

Moriarty's essay is more mess than masterpiece.  It is full of errors in describing events and more so in its interpretations and analysis of events.  It is there for all to see and judge while ours is not.  Yet, he leverages that fact and rants and tears down our history of which he is wholly unaware.  MacWood does the same on an unfinished draft history of several years ago.  Not only that, but Moriarty has the gall to think our history is comprised of his findings.  His findings, like him, are full of crap and should be ignored.  We used his essay as a spur to doing a comprehensive and unbiased research effort, something Moriarty has little to no knowledge of.  We used the MCC minutes and the collection of Merion articles that I have amassed and those that Joe Bausch put together.  There are more than 1000 newspaper articles, hundreds of magazine articles and a great deal of material unavailable to the general public, including Moriarty.  Still, he thinks his efforts are true and that he championed the correct history in his Missing Faces essay.  Well, he is missing his mind if he still thinks so.  His taunts and baiting will not cause us to publish the piece here.  That simply will not happen.  When we get permission from the two clubs, we will release it somehow...through the USGA or individually.  It will certainly be in our book.  MacWood will probably have access to it through Michael Hurdzan.  Moriarty, who cares?  I doubt he would like reality to intrude on his fantasy.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2008, 07:30:07 PM by Wayne Morrison »

Thomas MacWood

Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #134 on: July 23, 2008, 07:29:11 PM »

Brookline - 1894 W.Campbell, 1898 Windeler, 1911-1913 Windeler, 1927 Flynn

Essex County - 1894 W.Cambell, 1907 Willett/Caner/Dunn/Travis, 1911-1917 Ross

Salem - 1925 Ross

Charles River - 1921 Ross

Myopia Hunt - 1894 W.Campbell, ? Leeds

Brae Burn - 1912 Ross

Vesper - 1895 ?, 1899 Findlay, 1919 Ross

Belmont Springs - 1909 Ross

Winchester - 1902 Findlay, 1916 Ross

Oyster Harbors - 1927 Ross

Berkshire Hills - 1926 Tillinghast

Eastward Ho! - 1922 Fowler

Sankaty Head  - 1921 H. Emerson Armstrong

Longmeadow CC - 1921 Ross

Dedham Country and Polo - 1915 Ross, 1921 Fowler, 1923 Raynor

Kittansett - 1922 Wilson/Flynn/Hood

Taconic - 1896 ?, 1927 Stiles

Worcester - 1914 Ross

Thorny Lea - 1925 Stiles

CC of New Bedford - 1902 ?, 1923 Park

Tedesco - 1903 ?, 1912 Ross

The Orchard - 1922 Ross, 1927 Ross

Cedar Bank - 1927 QA Shaw

Woods Hole - 1898 ?, 1919 Winton, 1927 Stiles

Concord (9 holes) - 1913 Ross

Whitinsville (9 holes) - 1925 Hatch/Ross

Berkshire Hunt - 1926 Stiles

Oak Hill - 1920 Stiles, 1927 Ross

TEPaul

Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #135 on: July 23, 2008, 09:16:12 PM »
Wayno:

Where the hell are you--California, Korea? I'm surprised to see you post.

I just checked in with one of the old line "salts" from this website from way back and until recently because the bile and the anger was concerning even me. He basically said the site has gotten to be both a fair waste of time interspersed with these "trainwrecks", at least compared to the way it once was. I agree with him. That old salt has commonsense and he hands out tough but good advice. Can it ever get back to something like this site once was again? I have no idea.

Tom MacWood, you are a great raw researcher and that is remarkably valuable, but as I've always said you have a lot to learn about life, the times and the ethos of the world of golf, golf clubs, memberships and golf architecture, particularly historically. If I can ever help you in any way you know where to find me---just get in touch.

But this guy Moriarty is the definition of the decline of GOFLCLUBATLAS.com in my opinion and seemingly in the opinion of others. The old "salt" said just take a hiatus under these circumstances and concentrate on the other aspects of architecture that some of us have going. He even said you won't believe how productive you can be once you get away from this.

I don't mind fighting it out on Golfclubatlas about the things that concern us on here but when someone tries to destroy some of the things some of us do in architecture independent of this website, it's probably the time to draw the line.

« Last Edit: July 23, 2008, 09:18:38 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #136 on: July 23, 2008, 09:29:09 PM »
Tom MacWood:

What exactly does '? Leeds' mean under your Myopia listing? Does it mean you admit you don't know much about Leeds or his architectural contribution to Myopia? Don't you think perhaps you might consider Myopia's own history and history book before you dismiss it and the golf club's own records?  ;)

Thomas MacWood

Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #137 on: July 23, 2008, 09:58:42 PM »
TE
I'm trying to determine exactly when Leeds became involved - was it 1898 or later on. I'm also trying to find out if he was in the country at the time the second nine was added. Do you have any contemperaneous info or are you relying exclusively on the club history?

TEPaul

Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #138 on: July 23, 2008, 10:52:51 PM »
"TE
I'm trying to determine exactly when Leeds became involved - was it 1898 or later on. I'm also trying to find out if he was in the country at the time the second nine was added. Do you have any contemperaneous info or are you relying exclusively on the club history?"


Tom:

I'm pretty much relying on the club's history book, the club and its archives. It seems to be pretty good and pretty dedicated. Perhaps you may want to look at it before you dismiss it. The history book may not be that easy to come by since it was done over thirty years ago.

According to Myopia's history Leeds became extremely involved in the course from the time he joined the club (from TCC originally) in 1896. He was immediately put on the green committee and why wouldn't he be---eg in the amateur ranks around there then it seems like he was virtually unbeatable at that point and early clubs like that had tremendous respect and appreciation for golfers like that who were that good. in 1896 Leeds was probably good enough to take someone like Willie Campbell out. In the 1898 US Open at Myopia Lees was the low amateur. I don't know where Campbell finished. If you haven't yet figured it out almost all clubs and golfers back then felt if someone was as good a player as Leeds was they weren't just experts in golf they must be experts in golf architecture too. In Leeds' case that probably turned out to be true.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2008, 10:56:35 PM by TEPaul »

wsmorrison

Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #139 on: July 23, 2008, 10:53:04 PM »
Tom Paul,

I'm in Korea.  We have much to do...a break from GCA might just allow us the time to complete many of the pending projects, for instance the Flynn book.  While attempting to harm some of these seems to motivate Moriarty, he might just fade away if we ignore him.  Responding doesn't work, it only encourages him to escalate.  Did you get my message regarding Scott Anderson's idea?  One more thing in the "To Do" list.  See you soon.
WSM

Thomas MacWood

Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #140 on: July 23, 2008, 11:03:41 PM »
Tom Paul,

I'm in Korea.  We have much to do...a break from GCA might just allow us the time to complete many of the pending projects, for instance the Flynn book.  While attempting to harm some of these seems to motivate Moriarty, he might just fade away if we ignore him.  Responding doesn't work, it only encourages him to escalate.  Did you get my message regarding Scott Anderson's idea?  One more thing in the "To Do" list.  See you soon.
WSM

Wayne
One more thing for the to do list, and funny you should mention esculating, you might want to say something to TE. Lately he's been acting like rabid dog in heat....speeking of dog, how was dinner?

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #141 on: July 23, 2008, 11:11:56 PM »
Tom Paul.

I am thinking of starting a continuing thread entitled "Wisdom of the USGA Archives Committee" but with all the incredibly enlightening things you write, I am not sure I could could keep up.  The history of golf architecture is is good hands with someone as reasonable, rational, and even-keeled as you at the helm.    If I choose to start the thread, I have found my first entry.   Even better when you claimed that researchers could only contact Merion and Myopia through your good graces. 


THAT---that remark above is something I'm never going to let you forget or deny.

Come on.  You can't even remember your own posts.  How are you going to remember one of mine? Not ever!


You're trying to make a public mockery of something I truly care about and have invested a lot in. Nope.  This you have accomplished all on your own.

I can count on half the fingers of one hand the people I've truly despised in my life and you are one of them.

Sorry to hear about your deformity.  Do you have four fingers, or six?  Two?  Or do you just half despise one of us? 


Come on, you pathetic little self-impressed gnat, take me on in the world of golf and architecture and let's just see where the chips fall. I welcome it.

What on Earth (or your Planet) are you talking about?  What is the "world of golf and architecture" to which you refer, and just exactly how do you suggest I take you on there?   How do I even get to this world, it sound like fun?  But fair warning, if these chips are edible, I'll surely not be letting them fall.  Shall we meet behind the school after class? Shall we rock, paper, scissors until only one remains standing?  Shall we have a drinking contest for all the marbles?  Never mind that last one, I know when I am beat.
 

But let's do that without bothering this website's discussion group with it any longer. Let's do it in the real world of people and places and clubs and courses. You in the real world? Now that would be something to see!

Are you OK with that or is this your only forum? It's not mine. I thought this was a forum about golf course architecture, but if you think you know a better forum I'd love to hear about it.  It ought to be entertaining, at least.
 

I apologize for being so flippant Tom, but my God, man, read your post.  I wouldn't know how to begin to respond seriously . . . except to note that I think you have really lost it.  Again.   Is your life really so empty that I am one of the few people in the world you truly despise?  Surely a man of your upbringing and connections can come up with more worthy targets of your spite than me.  I am honored, but I mean really, Tom, I am not worth it, nor is the topic.  Don't take either one of us so seriously.  I don't.  You wouldn't even make my top 100.

Take a rest, Tom.  You obviously need it.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2008, 11:56:00 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #142 on: July 23, 2008, 11:31:49 PM »
Our Merion history is not as Moriarty describes it.  He is completely out of touch.  The only manner in which his research was used was as an inducement to finding out the truth about the events during the move of the Merion Cricket Club course from Haverford to Ardmore.  It preceded Flynn's involvement, so prior to Moriarty's essay, we didn't address it with much depth or due diligence.  What was clear to anyone somewhat familiar with Merion's history could easily see that holes in his logic and the assumptions built upon assumptions approach he took.  It was those assumptions (poor and agenda driven) that caused us to look into the story to a much greater extent.  If only Moriarty wrote his essay in less conclusive terms and if only it wasn't presented and endorsed in the way it was, would it be understood for what it is...an incomplete and partially researched essay.  But he drew definitive conclusions that were, in the end, easy to disprove.

Moriarty's essay is more mess than masterpiece.  It is full of errors in describing events and more so in its interpretations and analysis of events.  It is there for all to see and judge while ours is not.  Yet, he leverages that fact and rants and tears down our history of which he is wholly unaware.  MacWood does the same on an unfinished draft history of several years ago.  Not only that, but Moriarty has the gall to think our history is comprised of his findings.  His findings, like him, are full of crap and should be ignored.  We used his essay as a spur to doing a comprehensive and unbiased research effort, something Moriarty has little to no knowledge of.  We used the MCC minutes and the collection of Merion articles that I have amassed and those that Joe Bausch put together.  There are more than 1000 newspaper articles, hundreds of magazine articles and a great deal of material unavailable to the general public, including Moriarty.  Still, he thinks his efforts are true and that he championed the correct history in his Missing Faces essay.  Well, he is missing his mind if he still thinks so.  His taunts and baiting will not cause us to publish the piece here.  That simply will not happen.  When we get permission from the two clubs, we will release it somehow...through the USGA or individually.  It will certainly be in our book.  MacWood will probably have access to it through Michael Hurdzan.  Moriarty, who cares?  I doubt he would like reality to intrude on his fantasy.


I once had a puppy that went through 1000 newspaper articles and hundreds of magazine articles.  At least he produced something of substance in the process.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2008, 11:59:41 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Thomas MacWood

Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #143 on: July 25, 2008, 06:52:48 AM »
I think this list has pretty much run its course. A few things standout, first, not surprising, Donald Ross clearly dominates this list, and Wayne Stiles comes in a clear but distant second. The other thing that stands out, how little interferience there was from architects outside Massachusetts....as if there was a wall built around state.

Brookline - 1894 W.Campbell, 1898 Windeler, 1911-1913 Windeler, 1927 Flynn

Essex County - 1894 W.Cambell, 1907 Willett/Caner/Dunn/Travis, 1911-1917 Ross

Salem - 1925 Ross

Charles River - 1921 Ross

Myopia Hunt - 1894 W.Campbell, ? Leeds

Brae Burn - 1912 Ross

Vesper - 1895 ?, 1899 Findlay, 1919 Ross

Belmont Springs - 1909 Ross

Winchester - 1902 Findlay, 1916 Ross

Oyster Harbors - 1927 Ross

Berkshire Hills - 1926 Tillinghast

Eastward Ho! - 1922 Fowler

Sankaty Head  - 1921 H. Emerson Armstrong

Longmeadow CC - 1921 Ross

Dedham Country and Polo - 1915 Ross, 1921 Fowler, 1923 Raynor

Kittansett - 1922 Wilson/Flynn/Hood

Taconic - 1896 ?, 1927 Stiles

Worcester - 1914 Ross

Thorny Lea - 1925 Stiles

CC of New Bedford - 1902 ?, 1923 Park

Tedesco - 1903 ?, 1912 Ross

The Orchard - 1922 Ross, 1927 Ross

Cedar Bank - 1927 QA Shaw

Woods Hole - 1898 ?, 1919 Winton, 1927 Stiles

Concord (9 holes) - 1913 Ross

Whitinsville (9 holes) - 1925 Hatch/Ross

Berkshire Hunt - 1926 Stiles

Oak Hill - 1920 Stiles, 1927 Ross

TEPaul

Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #144 on: August 02, 2008, 09:46:31 AM »
It seems the original holes of Myopia Hunt Club were not laid out by Willie Campbell, as has been suggested on this thread.

It seems the original holes were laid out beginning in March 1894 by three Myopia Hunt Club members, R.M. Appleton, "Squire" Merrill and A.P. Gardner. The club records even describes most of these first nine holes. The club records also describes these three "partners" footing it over the terrain staking out tee and green sites. The recording of the club Secretary at that time, S. Dacre Bush, describes the proceedings of the club that led to the laying out of the nine hole course.

The holes were in play within three months and by the beginning of July, 1894 two tournaments had been held on them. TCC's scratch golfer, Herbert Leeds won both of them. In 1896 Leeds would join Myopia as well.

It also seems likely that Willie Campbell and his most interesting wife Georgina (most interesting in the early history of women in American golf) may not have even arrived in the country at that point. (Both Willie and particularly Georgina's lives in golf in America are described in an article in the Boston Globe that resulted from research done on Franklin Park G.C. by the Franklin Park historian as well as Willie and Georgina's grandson).

It's mentioned in a few accounts that Willie Campbell may've been at Myopia Hunt for a brief time but the club has no record of that (it appears both Willie and Georgina may've taught golf itself at a number of these early clubs simultaneously). It appears that if the LPGA (formed in the late 1940s or early 1950s) had someone who could be considered its percursor patron saint, it was probably Georgina Campbell.

Myopia does record that Robert White was the pro/greenkeeper there in those early years and was followed by long-time pro/greenkeeper John Jones whose name is attached to a part of the course "Jonesville" to the right of #10.

Robert White went on to a distinguished career in golf and architecture in America (the best courses of his I've seen are Berkleigh and definitely Long Vue in Pittsburgh). His resume includes being one of the founders of the PGA and the ASGCA.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2008, 10:03:19 AM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #145 on: August 03, 2008, 12:02:18 AM »
Tom,

Shouldn't someone be able to find when Willie and Georgina Campbell arrived on these shores via shipping manifest?

Oh wait...that's the other way around.   Only those who left can be found...or...one's who came into this country.   I forget.   ::) ;D

Mike_Cirba

Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #146 on: August 03, 2008, 12:08:00 AM »
Robert White went on to become the greenkeeper at Shawnee,and was great friends with Tillinghast.

While in the Poconos, he designed quite a number of golf courses, all of which Matt Ward hates, but guys like Andy Hughes and I like.  ;)

In the late 30's, he did a nine-holer about 10 miles from me called Green Hills which is great fun.   He also did Skytop, Water Gap (fka Wolf Hollow), Mount Pocono, Glen Brook, Wiscasset (mostly NLE) Harker's Hollow (NJ), Berkleigh (really a very good course, Pine Lakes in Myrtle Beach (another gem that is going to be restored) and a few others.



Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #147 on: January 27, 2011, 10:30:16 PM »

Brookline - 1894 W.Campbell, 1898 Windeler, 1911-1913 Windeler, 1927 Flynn

Essex County - 1894 W.Cambell, 1907 Willett/Caner/Dunn/Travis, 1911-1917 Ross

Salem - 1925 Ross

Charles River - 1921 Ross

Myopia Hunt - 1894 W.Campbell, ? Leeds

Brae Burn - 1912 Ross

Vesper - 1895 ?, 1899 Findlay, 1919 Ross

Belmont Springs - 1909 Ross

Winchester - 1902 Findlay, 1916 Ross

Oyster Harbors - 1927 Ross

Berkshire Hills - 1926 Tillinghast

Eastward Ho! - 1922 Fowler

Sankaty Head  - 1921 H. Emerson Armstrong

Longmeadow CC - 1921 Ross

Dedham Country and Polo - 1915 Ross, 1921 Fowler, 1923 Raynor

Kittansett - 1922 Wilson/Flynn/Hood

Taconic - 1896 ?, 1927 Stiles

Worcester - 1914 Ross

Thorny Lea - 1925 Stiles

CC of New Bedford - 1902 ?, 1923 Park

Tedesco - 1903 ?, 1912 Ross

The Orchard - 1922 Ross, 1927 Ross

Cedar Bank - 1927 QA Shaw

Woods Hole - 1898 ?, 1919 Winton, 1927 Stiles

Concord (9 holes) - 1913 Ross

Whitinsville (9 holes) - 1925 Hatch/Ross

Berkshire Hunt - 1926 Stiles

Oak Hill - 1920 Stiles, 1927 Ross


Mike
Poor Windeler? You've obviously not been following my posts over the years.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2011, 10:38:36 PM by Tom MacWood »

Mike Cirba

Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #148 on: January 28, 2011, 02:59:28 AM »
Tom,

Where's Curtis, Bacon, and Hunnewell who designed the first six holes at TCC?   My understanding is that Willie Campbell added three holes and extended the six, but I'm still learning here.   Similarly, what about the members who were involved originally in laying out the course(s) at Essex?

If you are able to scan the drawings from the 1930s TCC History book you recently referred to that show the evolution of TCC from a 6 hole, to 9, and to 18 and email them to me, I'll be happy to post them.

Thanks.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Massachusetts 1927
« Reply #149 on: January 28, 2011, 06:29:38 AM »
Tom,

Where's Curtis, Bacon, and Hunnewell who designed the first six holes at TCC?   My understanding is that Willie Campbell added three holes and extended the six, but I'm still learning here.   Similarly, what about the members who were involved originally in laying out the course(s) at Essex?

If you are able to scan the drawings from the 1930s TCC History book you recently referred to that show the evolution of TCC from a 6 hole, to 9, and to 18 and email them to me, I'll be happy to post them.

Thanks.

According to the schematic in 'The Country Club 1882-1932' Campbell's nine was a new one. The only hole that was even close was the first, and it was different enough for me to give Campbell the full boat. The original course at Essex was a five holer shaped like a star.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back