Willie Campbell & Myopia

[Melvyn Morrow]

My interest is not to side with one side or the other but to look at the facts. This is not the story of Merion, not silted over with this or that report that does not clearly define the full origins of the course. The newspaper articles and reports in this case appear to support each other in a simple and clear way that Willie Campbell was responsible for Myopia.

I am only dipping my toe in this American debate because Willie Campbell is worthy of support. His courses are not basic beginner’s attempts, but fun and well design affairs. In addition, his tutorage was impeccable. Willie was no novice when he departed our shores. Willie’s wife also proves his credentials, and was a wonderful women, knowing more about golf than most men let alone women in American at that time. Her abilities and character should be seriously considered when we debate Willies achievements as she would have been right there supporting her husband in his endeavours.

Was Willie Campbell the designer of Myopia? All the reports focus on the same conclusion, yes he was. It’s clearly stated in black and white print.

As for club histories, whilst a great source of information, their writers are human and errors/omissions do occur. Don’t agree, then just look and read what the so-called Golden Age guys said about their predecessors, surprising more out of actual ignorance that total self-promotion (I hope). Also, I have found out information, which the club historians have missed. I have advised them with copies and references of their omission as to the real designers of their course. Nor am I talking of just the odd one or two either (but of course, I am referring to courses in GB&I only).

Numerous reports appear to state the same facts, Willie Campbell designed Myopia in the mid 1890’s. Therefore, I feel the case is as close as we will get to proving that Willie Campbell was the designer of the Myopia Course.

Tom P, what is the good of a historic golf library, if we ignore historic records. Can we trust the very fabric of that Library? Would it not be right to include all information and allow each generation to make their own mind up based upon the evidence at hand. As more information comes to light, then the original accreditation can be reconsidered and/or updated if the new detail outweighs all the past records/information within the library. Knowledge is achieved from the continued input of information, it is a growing process with many blind alleys and bends on its long path.

The Truth is out there or is the library willing to have a Fiction Wing.

Melvyn


Tom Mac

"How long did it typically take to build a nine-hole golf course in 1894?"  From reports I have read the average in GB&I was uptwards to a min. of 3 months from appointment to opening of the course. Some faster, many longer but that was subject to the site, but on the whole circa 3 months as a rough guide for the early 1890's.
It was never design AM, play a full game of golf PM = course ready for opening.

Melvyn 

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You asked, "TEP and/or Phil, How long did it typically take to build a nine-hole golf course in 1894? For whatever reason you boys have avoided answering this question."

Sorry you think so, but I haven't avoided answering this question. Both the long and short one is that I don't know. I also don't see what that has to do with anything for a variety of reasons, the most important one being that, as has been pointed out, the decision to build Myopia's nine was made during March and they had their first competition on it in June. That isn't under dispute, so we know how long Myopia took to build...

You further asked, "Based on the evidence presented so far who do you believe laid out the first nine at Myopia?" I've answered that several times now and, in fact, you have even derided my answer by offering me some pretty good swamp land for sale at a great price.

But in case you have forgotten, I was wondering if maybe the 3 Myopia members designed and staked it and Mr. Campbell built and added in all the features such as the size of greens and placement of bunkers, etc... If so, then EVERY single newspaper article AND Mr. Weeks' book would be both accurate and orrect. Every now and then that happens where everyne is correct... It is also a reasonable explanation in this case based upon EVERYTHING that we know.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
How long did it take to layout the new courses at The Country Club and Essex County in 1894?

"I was wondering if maybe the 3 Myopia members designed and staked it and Mr. Campbell built and added in all the features such as the size of greens and placement of bunkers, etc.."

What information have you seen that would have you believe the three members had anything to do with designing the course? The newpaper reports make no mention of the three members, and neither does the brief excerpt from the executive report.

Have you attempted verify Weeks account? If so, what verification have you come up with?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You asked, "What information have you seen that would have you believe the three members had anything to do with designing the course?" None.

"The newpaper reports make no mention of the three members..." And Weeks' book makes no mention of Campbell. "and neither does the brief excerpt from the executive report." That also makes no mention of Campbell.

"Have you attempted verify Weeks account?" No. "If so, what verification have you come up with?" N/A.

Your turn. Do you have any verifiable FIRST-HAND evidence that states that Campbell designed Myopia?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Phil

Back in the early days the building of a golf course was not as destructive as most of the later period courses. They worked with the land due to minimal (if any) heavy earth moving equipment. I expect this was mirrored in the USA in the 1890’s.  However, it was commonplace to prepare the course ready for a competition or matches to be played either before or after the course was formally opened.

Therefore, the June competition could have been played on a raw course. The problem or the real solution to the construction of the course depends on upon the condition/suitability of the original land. I would also expect that course construction in that period to be based upon the traditional Scottish approach. But, as I have mentioned my knowledge of the early history of American courses is around zero. Nevertheless, I would not dismiss the course could have been in a condition to host a match that early on in its formation. The interesting point would be to read the report on that match, as I would expect some comment on the condition of the new course.

Melvyn

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
Based upon your lack of research into the subject it would appear you have no interest in Myopia's history, which begs the question why do you feel the need to interject yourself into this discussion. I see no evidence that you have anything to add in the way of information or insight. Your self-appointed role on this website now appears to be that of an arbitrator or referee; there was a time when you contributed information.

Considering the fact that course was designed 114 years ago, having three separate and contemporaneous sources claiming Campbell designed the course is about good as you are going get. Especially when you consider there are no contemporaneous reports claiming anyone other than Campbell was involved in the design of the course.

Obviously I don't have a time machine so I'm unable to got back to May/June 1894 to observe the action, and to question Campbell, his wife, and newspaper reporters. So to answer your question, no, I don't have any first-hand evidence. If you are going to require that standard might I suggest you go back and re-evaluate your claims and evidence presented regarding in your quest to prove Tilly designed Bethpage-Black.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Run book? The quote above is the sort of stuff you regularly spew on this site to give the impression you have some special historical access. The actual translation 'club record' = the history book. The official club record from the executive committee is a terse statement (in the words of Weeks) found in the club record....errr, history book:"


Tom:

Allow me to explain something fairly basic to you about how these kinds of clubs operate and keep their club records and administrative records. I mention this to you because of what you said just above which indicates to me you may be confused to some degree on this basic point, and for someone who claims to be a golf architectural historian who concentrates on CLUB histories being as confused on this point as you seem to be is definitely not good.

A club's HISTORY book like Weeks' for Myopia (1975) or Tolhurst's for Merion (1989) is not the same thing as a club's administrative records (board meeting minutes and committee meeting minutes). Therefore what you just said above---eg 'the actual 'club record'=history book' is not correct, not even close!

In clubs like Merion or Myopia and of that age generally have all their board and even committee meeting minutes contained and bound in books! Sometimes they are actually quite beautiful and even leather bound and generally are all the meeting minutes in a single year or two or so and are often labeled that way. That is the way the early MCC meeting minutes are and are bound that were found in the attic recently of MCC. The Myopia executive and committee meeting minutes are basically the same but Myopia did not refer to their executive committee meeting records or committee meeting minutes or records as such, as most golf clubs do, they always referred to them as "The Run Book" which I assume has some kind of fox hunting club etymology because that is precisely what Myopia HUNT Club was before golf existed at the club. It might still be referred to that way because Myopia is still active with polo and probably fox hunting too. You may not be aware of it, most on here may not be and why should they be but the sport of fox hunting actually has traditions and terms, procedures and etiquettes and such attached to it not unlike golf.

I hope that helps. The Myopia club administrative record or "Run Book" was and is definitely NOT the same thing as the club's HISTORY book, in this case the only one being Edward Weeks' 1975 club history book "Myopia 1875-1975."

And yes, Weeks did refer to Myopia's "Run Book" when he wrote his club history in 1975 about the club's hunting, polo, tennis, court tennis and golf. He also referred to Leeds' "scrapbook" for the club's golf history which I mentioned he had when he wrote his history book that appears to have been lost since.

I hope you consider the foregoing as contributing to this discussion of Myopia's history. I'm not sure about you but personally I feel when considering and investigating a club's history that really understanding how and why a club actually operates as it does throughout its history is a pretty important item in the historical analysis of the subject. Just considering outside and indirect newspaper articles about it is one way of looking at the history of a club but in my opinion doing it that way is far less than half the best and most complete and comprehensive way to go about it.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
According to Weeks this is the extent of what the Run Book tells us about the original nine hole course:

'At a meeting of the Executive Committee March 1894 it was decided to build a golflinks on the Myopia grounds.'

And apparently the Run Book has no record of Willie Campbell being the resident professional. Do you find that curious?

What does the Run Book say (if anything) about Appleton, Gardner and Merrill's involvement with the original nine?

[TEPaul]

“And apparently the Run Book has no record of Willie Campbell being the resident professional. Do you find that curious?

What does the Run Book say (if anything) about Appleton, Gardner and Merrill's involvement with the original nine?”


Tom:

I could answer those questions for you and ordinarily I would, certainly for anyone else on here other than Moriarty. Actually I already answered those questions for you but again you do not seem to have noticed just as you keep asking me and Phil the same question over and over about how long we think it took to build a course in 1894 despite the fact we answered that question a number of times even if the answer was that we really don't know for sure and that we can only guess, which we did. But I just don’t see the point of even bothering to try answering them for you again because of a constant stream of things like the following recent item:



“The rest of Weeks story reads like fantasy land, which is probably why you like it. Not unlike your fictional take on Flynn's early history, a kid from the other side of the track marries a member of an august Boston family, they move to Vermont and he designs his first course at the age of 19. And not unlike your favorite history book written by Desmond Tolhurst (maybe second favorite now to Weeks book) in which half the facts he gives are in error. I have to give you credit, there was a time not too long ago when you relied exclusively on Cornish & Whitten, at least you have graduated to club histories. You are making progress.”




If that’s the way you look at Merion’s and Myopia’s history books and me, and it’s certainly not the first time you’ve said that on here and I doubt it will be the last time, then that’s your good right---anyone is entitled to whatever opinion they have and state but I surely don’t need to get involved in addressing it and neither does Merion or Myopia. To you Barker routed and designed Merion East and to you Campbell staked out the nine original holes of Myopia and not those three members which the club recorded when they did it and before Campbell first arrived in America. Neither club is going to consider altering their architectural histories to reflect that, and I'm not going to alter my opinion of what happened to reflect that. If they did or I did the golf and architectural and historical world would just laugh at them considering what their own clubs recorded from not later but from the time those things were happening. And again, just because you have not had the opportunity to see them in person does not mean that anyone should assume and certainly not conclude they never happened. Good luck.

[DMoriarty]

What a farce.   Since TEPaul started posting on this thread it has become completely useless.   After deriding me and Tom MacWood repeatedly and claiming to have information that contradicts the multiple accounts that report Willie Campbell as having laid out the 9 hole course at Merion, he has NOTHING TO OFFER.  His point?

I know more than you do, and it's for me to know and you find out.   Hardly the makings of a productive conversation.

Phillip,

You should be embarrassed that you keep making excuses for this sort of thing.  It makes you look foolish by association.

[Phil_the_Author]

I am nether embarrassed to associate myself with Tom Paul nor am I embarrassed to associate myself with you... I do agree that this thread is no longer viable for a serious discussion...

[TEPaul]

Tom:

Actually the answer to your second question is on this thread. I'm not sure why it is that you ask questions, get definitive answers to them and then just keep asking them again and again as if they were not responded to. Why do you do that and why is it you've been doing it on here for so long? Do you not bother to read other people's responses to your questions or do you read them and they just don't register for some reason? You've been doing the same thing with Phil Young recently. It looks like he's at a loss of what to do about it as I am.


You say you're a researcher, right? I answered that question definitively on this thread. If you're a researcher why don't you see if you can find it first? I think that should serve as a basic test here since you ask the same questions over and over again; we answer them and you don't notice it; we tend to get tired of that. Wouldn't you agree?

[TEPaul]

"I do agree that this thread is no longer viable for a serious discussion..."


I agree with you Philip. Why don't you and I just play "The BETTER MAN" and take a powder for however long it takes for something interesting to arrive on this subject? No sense in devolving into adverserialness again. You don't want that and either do I. If others on here want to carry on----cool, let 'em have at it. Frankly, I've always been pretty good at finding humor wherever I can. A "farce" is humor, isn't it Phil? 

[Tom MacWood]

“And apparently the Run Book has no record of Willie Campbell being the resident professional. Do you find that curious?

What does the Run Book say (if anything) about Appleton, Gardner and Merrill's involvement with the original nine?”


Tom:

I could answer those questions for you and ordinarily I would, certainly for anyone else on here other than Moriarty. Actually I already answered those questions for you but again you do not seem to have noticed just as you keep asking me and Phil the same question over and over about how long we think it took to build a course in 1894 despite the fact we answered that question a number of times even if the answer was that we really don't know for sure and that we can only guess, which we did. But I just don’t see the point of even bothering to try answering them for you again because of a constant stream of things like the following recent item:



“The rest of Weeks story reads like fantasy land, which is probably why you like it. Not unlike your fictional take on Flynn's early history, a kid from the other side of the track marries a member of an august Boston family, they move to Vermont and he designs his first course at the age of 19. And not unlike your favorite history book written by Desmond Tolhurst (maybe second favorite now to Weeks book) in which half the facts he gives are in error. I have to give you credit, there was a time not too long ago when you relied exclusively on Cornish & Whitten, at least you have graduated to club histories. You are making progress.”




If that’s the way you look at Merion’s and Myopia’s history books and me, and it’s certainly not the first time you’ve said that on here and I doubt it will be the last time, then that’s your good right---anyone is entitled to whatever opinion they have and state but I surely don’t need to get involved in addressing it and neither does Merion or Myopia. To you Barker routed and designed Merion East and to you Campbell staked out the nine original holes of Myopia and not those three members which the club recorded when they did it and before Campbell first arrived in America. Neither club is going to consider altering their architectural histories to reflect that, and I'm not going to alter my opinion of what happened to reflect that. If they did or I did the golf and architectural and historical world would just laugh at them considering what their own clubs recorded from not later but from the time those things were happening. And again, just because you have not had the opportunity to see them in person does not mean that anyone should assume and certainly not conclude they never happened. Good luck.

TEP
You are very good at lecturing us on the importance of considering the Clubs above all, and letting us know what wonderful access you have, not so good at producing any info. This thread is another in a long list of threads where you have produced nothing.

David
I disagree, the thread didn't go south when TEP got involved, no one takes him seriously. It went south when Phil got on here and put forth his theory about the three members deigning the course (and Campbell simply constructing it) with no supporting documentation, and when it was pointed out he had no supporting documentation, he suggested newspaper reports were nothing more than hearsay (as if he never relies upon newspaper reports), and began demanding first-hand evidence. The thread went from producing information to Phil telling us if the info was acceptable or not. For some reason Phil has a problem with conteporaneous newspaper reports, yet he has no problem diagnosing a man dead for 60 years with a bio-polar condition.

[TEPaul]

“TEP
You are very good at lecturing us on the importance of considering the Clubs above all, and letting us know what wonderful access you have, not so good at producing any info. This thread is another in a long list of threads where you have produced nothing.”



Tom:

Sorry about that. Would you consider the answers to the following question important information? Moriarty asked it a few days ago. No answers though. He even said that he thinks you posted that the original nine pretty much remained intact. Obviously he doesn’t know the answers or why would he have asked in the first place?



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


Then he posted the question again because there was no answer:


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


Do you know the answers to that question Tom? If so why don’t you go ahead and tell us as much as you possibly can hole by hole with the details of each hole what that original nine hole course was like and what Leeds’ so-called “Long Nine” was like and the details of how the first one differed from the second one on which the 1898 US Open was held at Myopia?

Can you do that for us? If not just let me know if you’d like me to try to do it for you and Moriarty and others on here who may be interested in that important architectural information. Would you call that furthering this conversation on the architectural history and evolution of Myopia or are you just going to tell me again that even that is just me lecturing you and others on here and telling you and others what wonderful access I have?

Please go first in explaining the answers to that question in as much detail as you can or at least tell us you just can’t do that and why.

Thanks

[David Stamm]

Why are newpapers cited as invalid/valid in some cases, i.e. crediting Wlison with Merion, and yet invalid/valid in this case in regards to Campbell and Myopia? When are they credible and when are they not?

[Niall C]

Gentlemen,

It would appear that the discussion has moved on somewhat since I last posted on this thread.

For the record, the newspaper article (Glasgow Evening Times) that I found that referred to WC going to America was dated 9th March and not the 19th as I had originally thought. What it says is that WC had accepted appointment as greenkeeper to Boston GC and that "he sails for the states next week".

Then in 14th June 1895 the same paper states that he has been re-engaged as professional and greenkeeper for another year by the Brookline CC, Massachusets USA.

Another report dated 28th Feb 1896 states that he has left the CC of Brookline.

The final mention I have for him is a report dated 26th Nov 1896 which says the following;

"Courses are still being laid out in the States. Philadelphia, aided by Willie Campbell, has added another to its large number of links. St Andrews, having bought a lot of land at a cost, it is said, of 80,000 dols, will lay it out when the frost goes."

Not quite sure if any of that adds anything to the discussion but there you go.

Niall

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

I think the two go hand in hand, because as far as I can tell the only thing supporting Phil's theory is TEPaul's unsupported conclusion.   Phil has some confused ideas about what makes for reliable evidence, especially when it comes to his own theories.  

So far as I understand it, this is what we know:

-  Weeks reported that in March 1894, Myopia's executive committee decided that Myopia should have a golf course on its property.
-  Willie Campbell, the famous professional, arrived in Boston from Scotland shortly thereafter.
-  Two newspapers reported that Willie Campbell laid out the Myopia golf course.
-  In a later interview, Campbell's widow (also a teaching professional) confirmed that Willie Campbell laid out the original nine at Myopia.
-  In June 1894 the course was ready for play and hosted its first tournament.

No one has offered any facts beyond this.   Weeks had a narrative about what might have happened, but that was 1975 and there is nothing in the narrative to suggest that it was based on anything more than the snippet from the March 1894 decision of the executive committee deciding that a golf course should be built.  

Phillip has offered no facts beyond this.  Neither has anyone else.  

So why do Phillip and TEPaul keep posting their conclusions that contradict these facts?  

What purpose do unsupported conclusions serve but to bog down the discussion and distract from what is a pretty obvious from the facts before us?  

_________________________

David

The standard seems to be that if it supports one preconceived notion, then use it, if it does not then deride it, twist it, or do whatever you can to get rid of it.  

__________________________________

Niall,

It helps a little bit, because there is some mystery as to which Willie Campbell was involved in expanding Philadelphia CC.   There was a local Philadelphia as well.   But it would make some sense that it was the more famous Willie Campbell since Campbell had reportedly been hired to lay out Merion's course at around this this same time.  

Thanks for the information.

[TEPaul]

"This thread is another in a long list of threads where you have produced nothing."


Tom:

Well, at least today I produced the information that Myopia's "Run Book" was not the same thing as Weeks' 1975 history book which you apparently thought I was trying to say or you apparently thought it was. Would you say that was "nothing?"   At least I taught you what Myopia called its executive committee administrative record keeping book. Pretty unusual and cool term for what most all other clubs call their board and committee meeting records, don't you think?

At least you could have acknowledged learning that from me which by the way you absolutely never do or admit to (research snobs like you are consitutionally incapable of acknowledging things like that, I guess ). I tell you or teach you something on these threads and you either say it makes no sense or about a day later you act like you knew it all along or thought of it yourself.  

[Niall C]

David

Almost certainly the article would be referring to the famous WC however it is possible that they got duff info but I doubt it as it would have come from a WC contact.

Niall

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

We all know the difference between an administrative record and a club history.    The only question is whether the Run Book contains any more information that what was cited in the Weeks book.  My guess is no, because if there was anything you'd have brought it forward.   You only hide things that hurt your case.

[Joe Hancock]

In progress:



 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Joe,
I don't see Gene and Richard anywhere. Are you sure that's a real photo? Where did you get it from?

[Joe Hancock]

Joe,
I don't see Gene and Richard anywhere. Are you sure that's a real photo? Where did you get it from?

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Train_wreck_at_Montparnasse_1895.jpg

[TEPaul]

"Why are newpapers cited as invalid/valid in some cases, i.e. crediting Wlison with Merion, and yet invalid/valid in this case in regards to Campbell and Myopia? When are they credible and when are they not?"


DavidS:

I, for one, am not saying that newspaper articles are invalid or not credible although that kind of thing can certainly span a spectrum like anything else.

As to these newspaper articles that say Willie Campbell "laid out" the original nine at Myopia, I am not saying they are invalid or not credible. All I'm saying is one needs to be careful about what kind of interpretation they put on what those articles meant by Willie Campbell "laying out" that original nine. I have no doubt he did something on that original nine and maybe quite a bit but it appears (and I've been aware of this for over a year now) from Myopia's own records (not just Weeks' 1975 history book) that Campbell could not have routed (tees and greens siting) because that was already done by three Myopia members before Campbell ever arrived in America and so it isn't chronologically possible that Campbell could have done that part of creating that original nine.

I think Phil Young said it well when he mentioned both the club executive committee records and those newspaper articles could both be very right in what they say but not if one interprets either to mean that Campbell did what those three members did before he got there or conversely that those members did what Campbell did later (which frankly the club has never claimed that those three members did anything other than site those tees and greens (routed that original nine( probably in early March or earlier 1894). One also needs to appreciate who people like Appleton, Gardner and Merrill were----eg people like that did not get out there with a shovel or even went out there and sodded greens etc. People like that hired other people to do things like that for them. If some on here think that sounds elitist or whatever, I'm sorry but so be it, because that's just the way it really was back then with people like that. We can dismiss it or deny it but it would not be historically correct to do so.

I just wish more people on here would address that logical explanation that Phil mentioned.