Willie Campbell & Myopia

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

I was wondering the other night about how Myopia would treat whatever revelation about their first nine holes.  I suspect they would embrace it whatever it was.

Then, one line would be added to their next history saying something like Some sources reported that Willie Campbell laid out our original nine holes" or some such.  The words "It's likely" or "may have" might be substituted depending on how strongly they felt that he had something to do with the improvised first golf at Myopia.

But, they would still credit Leeds with making it the course that is revered today.  Life would go on, without the world wobbling off its axis either way.  Just to put this in perspective.

[Mike Cirba]

Last thought...

Tonight I reviewed the "Early Myopia" book and almost all of it concerns events prior to the club moving to Hamilton.

I suspect that the Run Books were missing for the club's time at Winchester, and others, because there are certainly a lot of newspaper references during the accounts of those years.

It seems they were either located by the time Weeks wrote his book, or I doubt he would have claimed that he had used "all" of the Run Books. 

Just also thought I'd mention that the sporting exploits of AppletonN MerrillM Gardner, and somewhat surprisingly, even HC Leeds well in advance of his "joining" the club are well documented, although golf is little mentionedd.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

I think we are in agreement that probably a year and a half woth of "discussion" here could have been averted if some had bothered to read Weeks's "Acknowledgments", which clearly listed that his sources were all of the internal clun  documents that Tom Paul originally claimed they did.

Oh well...hopefully everyone following was able to learn as much about early Boston golf as I have. 

[DMoriarty]

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

I wish you were kidding here.   First, Weeks called it an "entry," which is extremely misleading considering it was a magazine article.  If you don't believe me that it was misleading, then go back and read all of the posts about how this was Leeds' diary.  Surely your buddies were mislead by Weeks here but never bothered check up on it.

Second, the problem is that he didn't credit it. His references to sources are incomplete, misleading, and/or outright wrong.  Whether he knew it or not (I suspect not) he was copying a magazine article for the quote.   As a magazine writer he would have known that he needed to acknowledge that.  More likely he didn't know what he was quoting, and was just parroting someone else who had copied the article without properly attributing it.   As Brauer wrote, had Weeks been dealing with the actual sources, he would have known better than all these mistakes.

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

Not So. We don't know if he had the scrapbook or if he was copying what someone else had written previously. Given that he apparently didn't even know what he was quoting (as an author would have know to say so if he did) I'd be surprised if he had it.  Believe it or not, I am trying to give Weeks the benefit of the doubt here.   Because it would have been unethical for him to knowingly copy something from a magazine without acknowledging that he was doing so.  

The same thing might apply to the pond anecdote.  It obviously came from the Abbott book, but Weeks doesn't provide any credit for it, does he?

And we know much more about the "scrapbook" than we did before, or at least I do.
__________________________________________

Jeff Brauer

So you think I made up the part about the bit about the downcast golfer coming from the Myopia Songbook? Well here it is:



Look familiar?  

So what now?   Do you think I got some old paper, typed it up in old timey font, digitized it, and posted the snippet here to fool you?  After all, Weeks cannot be wrong in your eyes, so I must be.

As for the Golf Illustrated quote, I don't get your point.  Either Weeks' badly misattributed it, or he is copying from someone else who badly misattributed it.  When it comes to understanding the reliability of the Weeks' sources, the above is a distinction without a difference.

Then, one line would be added to their next history saying something like Some sources reported that Willie Campbell laid out our original nine holes" or some such.  The words "It's likely" or "may have" might be substituted depending on how strongly they felt that he had something to do with the improvised first golf at Myopia.

But, they would still credit Leeds with making it the course that is revered today.  Life would go on, without the world wobbling off its axis either way.  Just to put this in perspective.

I agree.  But this only begs the question of why you guys are so hell-bent on ignoring the contemporaneous evidence indicating that Campbell laid out the original course.  Why on earth would you fight so hard to tear down credit for this guy when multiple contemporaneous sources credited Campbell.   Aside from strong dislike of TomM and me, what could your motivation possibly be to fight so hard about something so petty?  

_______________________________________

As for his acknowledgements, nice try, but your conclusions are way over the top.  Again. Weeks thanked someone for looking through all the Run Books.  It is a simple acknowledgement, and doesn't touch on what specifically he had to work with.  What did you expect him to say? Thanks so much for looking through all those Run Books, except for that one from 188x to 189x;  I can't thank you for looking through that one because it was lost a long time ago.  You couldn't have looked through it, so no thanks for that then, but thanks for the rest.  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Isn't it likely that the snippet appeared in both the Run Book as well as the Song Book, which was mostly made up of humorous and/or playful club activities?

What about the other direct Run Book quotes, such as the 1894 report of Leeds score, the 1896 Newport Match...you simply can't wish or explain them all away.

Like I said, until someone is able to again look at the source material inside the club, and see what if anything it mentions about any role for Campbell (I suspect it won't...I suspect anything he did for Myopia was simply under his employ by TCC and Essex), the rest of us are playing with less than half-a-deck.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Good morning and thanks for posting from the Song Book.  I agree with Mike that it is very possible that the author also quoted from the run notes, so your snippet is inconclusive.

As to the still existant possibility that the run book notes from the era 1894 didn't exist, I should say that the quotation marks around "all" were mine, and added specifically to acknowledge that possibility.

As to not liking you, well, no comment, but I have said on numerous occasions that I think Willie had something to do with it, I would like to know the deeper story of why he isn't mentioned in club records, and I would congratulate you if you turned out to be spot on.

That said, a year long discussion, driven by you and "your historical analysis" that relies largely on documents all being wrong or interpreted wrong, seems to have taken a hit.

You have contended that Weeks misattributed many, many quotes, when his qualifications would make that unlikely....

You have contended that he didn't have access to the run books and scrapbook, when his words tell us he did....

You have done all of that without via "analysis" that fails to include the SIMPLEST possible measure - reading the document you spend so much time dismissing.

At this moment, I would say both your conclusions and methods have taken a severe hit in credibilty by any standard.  I would wager that if you ever had a case in court when a witness dropped such a bombshell that surprised you, that you would admit it would be pretty hard to recover in your case.

In this case, truer words than TePaul's were never spoken - We are ALL speculating with HALF A DECK, which we have admitted, but you continue to say that only we are, and that you are being a great historian. 

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

Given that, reportedly, the early Run Book was long ago lost, it is not likely that Weeks got the information form the Run Book.   Besides, Abbott was there, and wouldn't have needed to consult an administrative record to tell us about he dour seriousness of the golfers.  Had Abbott been relying on the the same source as Weeks, then why do he and Weeks come to different conclusions about who laid out the course?  

My guess is that those other reports were misattributed like the rest, and came from other sources.  

The Run Book was made up mostly of accounts of humorous or playful activities?   Earlier your pal represented that he Run Book was the official administrative record of the club!  If an anecdote and joke book, then its value as a source of information is extremely limited.

As for your suggestion that we wait for "someone" to review the records, I note that the suggestion is so preposterous that not even you can use "someone's" name when making the suggestion.  "Someone" has already falsely claimed that he had been through the records, and that "someone" has made a number of claims (mostly mistaken) about what was and was not contained in those records.  Yet, after repeatedly insisting that there is nothing about Campbell in those records, now that "someone" wonders out loud whether or not there is some record of Campbell in those records. "Someone" has been been having trouble keeping tracks of his fibs lately.  

I do agree with one thing, though --the idea of relying on "someone" to tell us Myopia's history or any other history is too ridiculous for even you use his name.  "Someone" doesn't deserve mention here at all.

______________________________________

Jeff Brauer,  More of your wishful thinking falls flat, yet it is my credibility that is damaged?  Nice projection on your part, given your various theories of late.

Remember how you claimed Bush was the Club Secretary in 1897-1898?  Reportedly he was never Club Secretary, despite repeated claims by Weeks and your buddy that he was.    Remember your theory that they must have lost the Run Book, recreated immediately thereafter (thus the past tense), then apparently lost it again before 1940, and then found it again sometime before 1970?   Yet you question my credibility?  Your analysis makes your research skills look sound by comparison.  

As usual, your contentions about my positions are wholly inaccurate.  You guys are the ones who have insisted on trying to make this about Weeks. For me, I have little interest in what Weeks said other than for the the source references, but they are unfortunately proving quite unreliable.

You seem to have this crazy notion that my position relies on some contention or another about Weeks.  It doesn't.   Weeks never claimed that he was relying on the Run Book regarding the creation of the course.   You guys just made that up and seem to think that what you say goes unless proven otherwise.   Not so.    Whether by you or Weeks, speculation about he creation of the course is only as good as the supporting documents.  You have none, and neither does he.  

On the other hand, we have a number of contemporaneous documents indicating what happened.  So far they are uncontradicted, and each of your attempts to prop of Weeks as infallible has failed.    If you think that some secret documents will redeem your position, then don't let me stop you from finding them.  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I trust you know I meant it was the Song Book, not the Run Book, that was made up of playful, humorous club ditties and stories.

In any case, I hope you enjoy the Weeks book, and perhaps we can all learn more about the sourcing of information in the coming year.   It's a great old club with a fabulous course...probably the first really good example of preserved excellent architecture in this country, and I think that's what has fascinated many of us and led to such a lengthy discussion here.

Have a good day.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I trust you know I meant it was the Song Book, not the Run Book, that was made up of playful, humorous club ditties and stories.

No Mike, I didn't and don't know that is what you meant.  In fact that doesn't even make sense given the context of your original statement.  You were claiming that those anecdotes in the Song Book came from the Run Book.  So it sounds like you think both were full of jokes and anecdotes.  Abbott was there.  He didn't need to consult the Run Book to sense the mood of the golfers.  The point is that we really cannot tell where Weeks got the information -- his information could, and likely did, come from the Songbook.    Your assumptions that he got the AM&G story from some administrative record are unfound. 

"In any case, I hope you enjoy the Weeks book."  Huh?

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I had hoped that providing you with the Weeks book would help clarify some matters, as well as be seen by you as a goodwill gesture.

Apparently I was wrong on both counts.

Oh well, have a good day anyway.  

We now know that Weeks had access to all the Run Books, we know he had Leeds Scrapbook, and we know he had a lot of other sources, any one of which could have led to the attribution.   However, until someone actually gets to see the original records within Myopia that both John May and Weeks used to credit Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner all this typing by the rest of us is purely speculative and probably moot anyway.   I'm moving on to more verifiable and hopefully productive areas of concern.

[TEPaul]

It would be virtually impossible to do anything other than assume (read; speculate) if Weeks got (or didn't get) his story on AMG from the club's records without reading the club's records. So far as I know, almost no one on this website has ever read any of Myopia's records.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

We do NOT know that they had all the run books.  Only you would try try to distort a simple acknowledgement into a binding inventory of what of what Weeks had and didn't have.  

What we do know is that there were multiple contemporaneous sources indicating that Campbell laid out the course, and that after 48 pages of you guys trying to cast doubt on this and challenge it, it remains the only theory with any real support.  We also know that the Weeks book does not appear to have been reliably sourced.

As to the Weeks book, I've no idea what you are talking about, but am nonetheless not surprised you would twist it that way and try and milk it.

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy said the following about Myopia on another thread ("Chronology of NGLA..."):

"The Myopia articles, for better or worse, challenge that clubs guarded and conventional narrative. As it becomes more apparent that it might be part fact/part fiction, it causes those taking the conservative position to make the articles appear less than valuable instead of trying to sort out their proper worth."


The 'Myopia Articles' Jim Kennedy is probably referring to are 3-4 newspaper articles from 1894 that mention Willie Campbell laid out Myopia's original 1894 nine hole golf course.

The questions become about those articles----was Myopia itself ever aware of them; was any of Myopia's history book writers aware of them and is the club today (and its historian) aware of them?

I cannot answer the first question without a through review of the records of Myopia from the 1890s. I cannot ever know if Myopia's history writers, Abbot, Forbes, Batchelder, Boyden and Weeks were aware of them because they are all dead and I can't ask them. I can answer the question of whether Myopia is aware of those articles now because I have told a number of people at Myopia, including their apparent historian about them.

So what are they going to do about them and some determination of their relevance and worth? Good question; I guess we will all have to wait and see about that.

But I am aware that there are some from Myopia and others who have known it well and studied its history including the evolution of its architecture from 1894 until today that are probably more aware than most about just how different the golf course that Myopia considers their golf course (their 18 hole golf course from approximately 1900) is from that original 1894 nine hole course and even from Myopia's so-called "Long Nine" that was used in the 1898 US Open Championship. And I am talking about this issue on a hole by hole basis.

The fact is there are only about five holes on that course that are even in the same place as that original 1894 nine and of them there are arguably only two greens left from that 1894 nine and of those two arguably only one is used in the same way on its hole as it may've been in 1894.

Therefore, if Myopia today acknowledges that Willie Campbell had something to do with their orginal 1894 nine hole course it would seem appropriate for them to also conclude that what it was is probably not that relevant to the course today or the course of 1900 which is largely the same course that is there today or even the Long Nine, some of whose holes or partis of them were altered as they were brought into play on the 18 hole course.

I would also expect Myopia to make their own determination of what if anything Willie Campbell had to do with the development of the Long Nine from the original 1894 nine because as far as I can tell at this time there is no factual evidence at all that he did anything with Myopia architecturally after what was reported in 1894 that he did.

The architect of record of Myopia for about 110-114 years has been Herbert C. Leeds, and there does not seem to be any particularly good or historically worthwhile reason to change that now or even to add to it (particularly considering one history book claims three members routed that original nine hole course and there is no evidence that has been produced to date that actually contradicts or disproves that). One contributor on here keeps listing Myopia as designed by Willie Campbell and even if he did have something significant to do with the design of that original 1894 nine hole course that architectural attribution is largely irrelevant and largely inaccurate and incorrect regarding what is there now and what has been there for just about 110 years!

The foregoing is not to in any way minimize Willie Campbell and what he may've done for Myopia in 1894, it is only to put the whole thing into its proper historical perspective.

[Tom MacWood]

Jim Kennedy said the following about Myopia on another thread ("Chronology of NGLA..."):

"The Myopia articles, for better or worse, challenge that clubs guarded and conventional narrative. As it becomes more apparent that it might be part fact/part fiction, it causes those taking the conservative position to make the articles appear less than valuable instead of trying to sort out their proper worth."


The 'Myopia Articles' Jim Kennedy is probably referring to are 3-4 newspaper articles from 1894 that mention Willie Campbell laid out Myopia's original 1894 nine hole golf course.

The questions become about those articles----was Myopia itself ever aware of them; was any of Myopia's history book writers aware of them and is the club today (and its historian) aware of them?

I cannot answer the first question without a through review of the records of Myopia from the 1890s. I cannot ever know if Myopia's history writers, Abbot, Forbes, Batchelder, Boyden and Weeks were aware of them because they are all dead and I can't ask them. I can answer the question of whether Myopia is aware of those articles now because I have told a number of people at Myopia, including their apparent historian about them.

So what are they going to do about them and some determination of their relevance and worth? Good question; I guess we will all have to wait and see about that.

But I am aware that there are some from Myopia and others who have known it well and studied its history including the evolution of its architecture from 1894 until today that are probably more aware than most about just how different the golf course that Myopia considers their golf course (their 18 hole golf course from approximately 1900) is from that original 1894 nine hole course and even from Myopia's so-called "Long Nine" that was used in the 1898 US Open Championship. And I am talking about this issue on a hole by hole basis.

The fact is there are only about five holes on that course that are even in the same place as that original 1894 nine and of them there are arguably only two greens left from that 1894 nine and of those two arguably only one is used in the same way on its hole as it may've been in 1894.

Therefore, if Myopia today acknowledges that Willie Campbell had something to do with their orginal 1894 nine hole course it would seem appropriate for them to also conclude that what it was is probably not that relevant to the course today or the course of 1900 which is largely the same course that is there today or even the Long Nine, some of whose holes or partis of them were altered as they were brought into play on the 18 hole course.

I would also expect Myopia to make their own determination of what if anything Willie Campbell had to do with the development of the Long Nine from the original 1894 nine because as far as I can tell at this time there is no factual evidence at all that he did anything with Myopia architecturally after what was reported in 1894 that he did.

The architect of record of Myopia for about 110-114 years has been Herbert C. Leeds, and there does not seem to be any particularly good or historically worthwhile reason to change that now. One contributor on here keeps listing Myopia as designed by Willie Campbell and even if he did have something significant to do with the design of that original 1894 nine hole course that architectural attribution is largely irrelevant and largely inaccurate and incorrect regarding what is there now and what has been there for just about 110 years!

The foregoing is not to in any way minimize Willie Campbell and what he may've done for Myopia in 1894, it is only to put the whole thing into its proper historical perspective.

TEP
Throughout this whole process you have intentionally misguided and misrepresented what you've seen. As someone interested in discovering the truth you have no credibility as far as I'm concerned. You have no idea how Myopia evolved.

Political, religious and social organizations are not the final word on history, and in particular their own history.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

Two points - a Feb 24, 1896 article reports Campbell at Merion Cricket Club, noting he may well stay there to superintend the links he laid out.  We can conclude that the decision to return to Myopia was made later in the year, for whatever bearing that has on his involvement in 1896.  If they weren't sure he was not going to stay in Merion, would they have counted on him being there to help with the expansion to the long nine?

Second, I will side with TePaul here.  While he had made a few mistakes in presenting some of what he has briefly seen at Myopia, your black and white, broad brush painting of him as a dunce when it comes to Myopia is a bit over the top.  Besides, Weeks, with his access to some run books, if not all, and the Leeds scrap book tells us the majority of what we need to know about how the original nine morphed to the long nine, admitting there are three holes he has no idea about.  But the others are detailed as to what was extended, moved, modified, etc.

And, before you say it, I will challenge your belief that Weeks is totally unreliable for the same reasons as above for TePaul.  It is also an interesting and inconclusive topic as to who should control history.

Lastly, on one of your early posts here, you easily say that clubs like Myopia have bad histories, and make several assumptions based on that.  In essence, you are just as guilty of pre-debate bias as TePaul, but on the other side of the coin!

Carry on.

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff
The golf season began in June at Myopia; I don't know when Myopia extended the offer to Campbell or when he accepted.

You're free to believe whatever you want. I'm not surprised you would side with TEP, especially based upon your track record dealing with these thorny historical issues.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Throughout this whole process you have intentionally misguided and misrepresented what you've seen. As someone interested in discovering the truth you have no credibility as far as I'm concerned. You have no idea how Myopia evolved."


Tom MacWood:

Of course you can just keep saying things like that on here and the fact is you do keep saying things like that and you have for years. But the reality of it all is you  have no idea what you're talking about with Myopia or with me or with me and Myopia and its history. In fairness to you, there really is no way you could---you've never been there, you know no one from that club and all you have to go on about it is a couple of 1894 newspaper articles and an Internet discussion board. I've known that club and numerous of its members over a period of fifty years, from all the way back then and until today.

Given all that there is no way in the world you could understand any of it or analyze the history of it as someone like I can.

Nevertheless, I have no doubt at all you will continue to say the types of things you did above and have frequently on here. As far as I'm concerned I hope you continue to say things like that because all it really does is continue to make you look like a bigger and bigger fool, and a very insecure one at that, and on this discussion board as well as in the eyes of people from Myopia if they happen to read threads like this one.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I wasn't feeling well yesterday and in spurts, went back and read the original thread.  With the exception of some DM-Mike Cirba exchanges, this was quite a civil thread for a long time, up until Dec. 2010, when it seemed to blow up.

Before that we were mostly talking info and facts, and not personalities.  At that point, Mike Cirba even agreed with you that WC laid out the original course.  Not sure what changed his mind, or simply left him wondering about the lack of WC in club records, which for anyone wanting to know the truth, should be part of the story, no?

[TEPaul]

"In essence, you are just as guilty of pre-debate bias as TePaul, but on the other side of the coin!"



Jeffrey:

I'm wondering exactly what you mean by that. What pre-debate bias do you think I'm guilty of? I realize some on this website have accused me of that but I wonder what it is you mean by that. If you mean that it has something to do with Willie Campbell and the fact he may've had something to do with Myopia in 1894, where on this website or any of these threads have I ever tried to deny that is most certainly a very real possibility in my opinion, and always has been since I found out about those newspaper articles. I just happen to think that that fact, if it is a fact, does not make what Appleton, Merrill and Gardner did not a fact. I do not look at these two things as mutually exclusive or necessarily mutually exclusive as unfortunately some others on here seem to be trying to do or wanting to do.

But I also certainly do feel that others, or anyone, for that matter, should not be constantly speculating about things and material and the meaning of both which they know perfectly well they have never actually seen!

I have a feeling that the fact that I have seen more than others on here of an about Myopia material, both at Myopia and otherwise, and that I may continue to do that in the future, is just continuously annoying and frustrating to some on here and their responses and accusations regarding it and me is their way of showing their annoyance and frustration about that.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

I was just writing of his perception that you blindly supported the "Amateur Sportsman" school of gca, for at least six courses in America.

If you look back, I think all of us on the "Myopia Side" have admitted that WC probably had something to do with that original nine, or at least its reasonable to conclude he did based on those three nearly identical newspaper articles that seemingly came from the same source.  Despite that, David M in particular seems to continue to argue against any shade of involvment, such as our contention that they started with Appleton, et al before the annual meeting and before WC reached our shores, and then brought WC in after he got here, because he was experienced, handy, or because they had some problems of some kind.

All he seems to care about is the black or white credit to Willie C, and not the real story of how the record came to be so muddy, no?  At least, there is no indication from any of his posts that he cares about that to me, but I could be wrong.  And, he seems MOST concerned that we adopt his historical analysis, which purposely avoids using club records.  Early in this thread, I asked if this was just another version of the "club record" vs. "newspaper article" debates, and I have concluded that it is.

Funny, but when you have seen club records, you tend to value those, and when you only see newspaper articles, you tend to value those.  We all have bias.  Mine is that in my limited historic reseach, official records (which they claim do not exist for Myopia and perhaps they don't) usually offer up the best record.  I have usually found information in newspaper articles first, but was never really sure they were right until I saw an official record confirming it.

BTW, my own efforts at research is also the basis for me saying that usually, the simplest explanation is the truest one.  Thus, saying Appletone, et. al, did something in March and Campbell did something in May rings true with me, over a simplistic (but not simple) explanation that Weeks got nearly everything he wrote wrong.

[Mike Cirba]

Before that we were mostly talking info and facts, and not personalities.  At that point, Mike Cirba even agreed with you that WC laid out the original course.  Not sure what changed his mind, or simply left him wondering about the lack of WC in club records, which for anyone wanting to know the truth, should be part of the story, no?

Jeff,

Yes, at that point it did seem to me that Wilie Campbell was the sole designer of the original course at Myopia based on the evidence that had been presented to date on the thread, even if there were some obvious open questions.

He still may very well have been.   However, I now believe it most likely that both stories are true.

What changed?   Well, after having the privilige of playing at Myopia this past October, and after David resurrected the old thread to make some other point on another thread, I began my own search into Myopia's early origins using my own limited newspaper archive subscription, and began to get a much fuller, if still incomplete picture.

Before then, I did no research at all on the club and only knew very sketchily what had been presented here over months, as I periodically followed along.  

However, even just simple searches for "Appleton", "Merrill", and "Gardner" yielded a whole lot of new information that somehow had never been presented here previously.

Before then, we were told they were dunces who didn't even play the game, who were derided as "Master of the Hounds", who had no experience with the game prior to Campbell's arrival.   We were even told that HC Leeds didn't play golf until the spring of 1894 and then learned everything he knew about playing the game and about architecture from Willie Campbell.   We were also told that all of this information came from well-documented, multiple news sources.

What I found was very different.

Instead, ALL of these men had been playing the game from the inception of golf at The Country Club in Brookline.   Leeds in particular was already mastering it, being the best player there by six shots.  

I also learned that Appleton and Merrill were assigned sometime before April 15, 1894 to a subcommitee charged with bringing golf to Myopia, and that the third, AP Gardner, was in Hamilton that spring as well at his in-laws.  

We also learned that Appleton was golfing on his estate, probably with the same group of friends.  

But what really led me to start doubting the story of Campbell being authoritative was the number of flagrant errors, plagiarism (or the same writer for multiple papers), and base misunderstanding of the game of golf so self-evident in many of those articles appearing in the high-society gossip columns of that time.

I had previously found, and posted, and article from one paper talking about Myopia opening "two new links".    A few weeks liater, Joe Bausch sends me an article from another paper that reported the same thing in slightly different words.   This to me confirmed what I'd seen earlier, where David Moriarty posted about sheep coming to Myopia in mid-May, and then I found a only very slightly differently-worded article in another paper saying the same thing.  

Also, strangely, almost all the articles seemed to intermingle the goings-on at Myopia and Essex, as if they were a single entitiy.   And...we DO know that Campbell was employed at Essex at that time and that he had indeed enlarged the course at that club in the same timeframe.

But the coup de grace for me was when Joe Bausch sent me an article that had the Opening Day tournament played at Myopia reported as happening on the Essex CC course in Manchester!!

So, at this stage, I can neither sincerely discount what Weeks or John May of Golf Digest found that indicated that Appletion, Gardner, and Merrill staked out the original course, and I don't think anyone could do that without seeing what sources exist within the club that they used.

Neither can I sincerely discount that Willie Campbell may have done the whole thing, sometime in late May.   Still, that doesn't seem to make any sense to me when I consider that reports were that the greens were sodded and cut prior to opening.   That just feels like something that would take some time to get done

So, I think the very sincere position is we don't know.   I think anyone who argues that they KNOW what happened is either deceiving themselves, or trying to deceive us.

I find it funny that someone would accuse me of being a "preservationist", which is something I'd like to take up on another thread at an appropriate time.   I have no issue with modifying the stories of the creation of our courses as new evidence surfaces....when we found others involved besides Hugh Wilson with the creation of Cobb's Creek we EMBRACED those stories because they added a richness of detail and complexity that we hadn't previously known, that ultimately enriched the history of that course, not detracted from it.

But I guess it's easier to argue against a stereotyped strawman than against reality.

I don't object to the addition of new materials and evidence about any course's origins;   I object to the bending of facts, the straining of phrases, the introduction of new myths seeking to wholly replace old ones.   

I want the rest of the story.

Have a great day!

[TEPaul]

"Funny, but when you have seen club records, you tend to value those, and when you only see newspaper articles, you tend to value those.  We all have bias."



But Jeffrey, I have seen both----the newspaper articles and some club records, and so I am still not quite understanding what you think is my bias or 'pre-debate bias' as you mentioned above. I just may be the only one on this website that has seen both.

So show me where you think I have shown some bias about either of them. Have you ever seen me say on here that I think those newspaper articles of 1894 that mention Campbell laying out the original 1894 course are fiction or completely wrong or historically inaccurate? I don't think so. And have you ever seen me say on here or anywhere else that Myopia records from that time don't exist or are some work of fiction or pretend? I don't think so. I pretty much leave that kind of odd and illogical characterization to others on here and it is eternally disappointing to me that some on here do that. That is not intelligent historical analysis in my opinion, and I certainly do realize I have told them that and continuously, and I have every expectation that I will continue to tell them that because I believe it strongly!

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

I think your #1670 is a good one and an explanatory one to a degree (it certainly is a long one ).

But I think it is perhaps no more than half the story of these threads and both how and why they evolve and devolve as they do.

I think the rest of the story of how and why they evolve and devolve as they do is because some on here, and particularly David Moriarty, try to turn these threads into a discourse and discussion that essentially uses or even tries to only allow COURTROOM PROCEDURES!!

There is no question of this in my mind and I believe trying to do that on an Internet Discussion Group like this one and as this one is supposed to be and designed to be, is inherently limiting, dangerous, counter-productive and just fosters endless argumentation and adverserialness.

I am in the process of preparing a new thread on this very subject! But who knows; Ran Morrissett of late has been strongly encouraging me to do some IMO pieces and maybe this one and this subject will be one of those as well. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

That is one of the more well thought out and rational "defenses" for questioning Willie Campbell's sole attribution of the original nine at Myopia. And it makes my point - the whole either-or debate focuses more on someone deciding which one article is the "key" to understanding the whole thing, which should be discounted, etc.  I have often said there is a reason for all those different accounts being written, and believe most are mostly true, if that makes any sense, and not mutually exclusive.

I agree with your post 1670 completely.

TePaul,

It appears to me that your pre-debate bias stems from a strong belief that you must have been on the ground and at a club to really know its history.  I do think much can be gleaned from other sources, and mostly think Phil Young was right on - its ideal to have a relationship with a club, but not absolutely necessary in this information age. 

My disagreement with TMac immediately above is his long standing implication that someone outside the club MUST be the keeper of the history, as if these folks are almost counted on to be truth hiders, which I doubt is the case.  I know that we have found errors in some club histories, but I feel his bias is almost too strong in the direction that they ALL have errors.  And, maybe they do. 

I actually support the idea of continued research into any club history to see if they can be supplemented.  But, its all in the presentation.  If DM and TMac said they were supplementing Myopia's history, no one anywhere would object.  To imply they got it all wrong is certain to ruffle feathers there and elsewhere, and is really counter productive, IMHO.

[TEPaul]

"It appears to me that your pre-debate bias stems from a strong belief that you must have been on the ground and at a club to really know its history.  I do think much can be gleaned from other sources, and mostly think Phil Young was right on - its ideal to have a relationship with a club, but not absolutely necessary in this information age."



Jeff:

If that is what you mean by my bias or 'pre-debate bias' then I definitely admit to it. I very much do feel that way and actually more than ever as I continue to read some of these threads, particularly the ones David Moriarty and Tom MacWood participate on or start.

I do believe it is virtually impossible to ever come to know a golf club and its architectural history such as the likes of Merion, Myopia, Shinnecock, Oakmont, NGLA, and numerous others of that ilk without actually going there and experiencing the club, the course, the members and their history and ethos, and definitely more than just one time or whatever.

However, I don't think good historians and good GCA analysts have to have fifty year histories with some of those places as I have to figure some of this stuff out and the ethos of it but they do have to have some experiences at and with their subjects, in my opinion. I have seen others do it pretty well, like Geoff Shackelford, Bob Labbance and more recently certainly Jeff Silverman, but not a one of them would try to or has done a comprehensive work on any club without ever actually going to it, as MacWood or Moriarty refuse to do or just have not done with some of these clubs and courses and their histories then pretend on here to be some kind of experts on.

To me, the way they try to go about it on here is virtually impossible, not just for them but for anyone, and it shows in spades almost every day and in every way with their every post.

Of course they can just keeping claiming on here that they can do it that way and what they say on here is more accurate than those who know those clubs for years and their history writers that have spent huge amounts of time with and at their subjects. They can just keep saying that on here until the cows come home as far as I'm concerned, but I will never buy it because the fact is I know better. I wish some day they would know better as well, but for some years and up until to date they don't seem to and so I would not want to hold my breath that they ever will.