Willie Campbell & Myopia

[DMoriarty]

Your opinion, Mike, and you ought to have some idea by now of how much I value that.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

To be honest, I am having trouble seeing the difference in you providing a potential routing for MH based on hole names and your critical analysis, or for that matter, using Google to measure yardages, without leaving space between greens and tees and Mike's effort.

Either we examine all potential routings, for fun, or we examine none.  I guess we can go with none under the circumstances.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

As usual, you portray historical research and analysis as some sort of egalitarian endeavor where every theory, suggestion, supposed proof, and opinion is as valuable as the next, and we have no reasonable means of sorting through any of them.  Such is not the case. 

We don't have to accept all or none.  We distinguish and discriminate between them and accept only what makes the most sense based upon all we know, leaving open the possibility that it all may change in the future.   

Mikes attempted 2050 routings were a joke.  Even you admitted that they were suspect.   Mike's continued faith in this 2050 yard figure is likewise extremely questionable.    As is yours if you still are sticking with this.

As for my routing, it isn't really mine at all in that it uses some approximation of holes that Myopia used at some time or another.  One of the reasons I suggested it, is that your buddy TEPaul had suggested and/or intimated number of times that there may have been holes dropped from the original nine but then brought back for the eighteen.  At the time I thought he might have actually had a basis for saying this, but in retrospect, given how much he has lied about the information he has supposedly seen, that was probably a rash judgment on my part.   

Anyway, I had my reasons for suggesting the possible routing I did, and I still think it makes more sense than anything else I have seen, but it very easily could be wrong.   

As for measuring point to point rather than trying to guess at each hole length, it obviously isn't perfect, but I like it as a general methodoloigy and think it makes a lot of sense in situations were some of the holes are locked into place by what we know of them and/or natural features, and this seems to be the the case with the first course at Myopia. 

Obviously the method doesn't give us an exact distance of the holes or even of the overall coure, but it does give us an approximation of  the distance covered, and provides a general idea of the approximate total distance.   

The methodology also reflects how they thought of the course in the beginning.  This wasn't cart ball, so it would have been a bit unusual for long treks between every hole.   It was a course, like a race course, not a collection of random holes scattered about the country side.   Why else do you think they almost always described the "courses" in total yardage, usually in miles and fractions thereof, like a course for a horse race?

So criticize my methods all you like, but I've measured some old courses point-to-point and compare it to the listed yardage, and so unlike you I have some idea of whether or not the methodology is actually helpful, and certainly more helpful than Mikes bent attempts at proving a point by fudging measures based on a stick drawing.  Perhaps you should test it yourself before criticizing it further. 

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Would you like me to interpret that for you?

David has been arguing here for two points.

The first, that WC laid out the first nine hole for the club and not the members, but more importantly, that this original course is still largely incorporated in todays' routing.

Obviously, accepting May at his word that the course was 2050 yards long doesn't fit at all with his latter theory, even though I've shown how that could be done and reflect the same hole names, even though TMac has told us that WC designed plenty of courses in this yardage range, even though the stick routing for his course at TCC comes out roughly at 2200 yards.

There is also the usual overt explicit "confidence" that only his opinion is valid and worthy but I guess that's his opinion.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Of course you think your critical thinking and method is valuble while others isn't.  You always do!  But, as I have pointed out a few times, there have been flaws in all of our "analysis" including some whoppers on your part, that make all of us other than you accept each of your points as potentially flawed, or at least with some reservations.

BTW, I think I know something about measuring golf courses using CAD and aerial photogrhaphy.  I wasn't really criticizing your method, but thought to myself that it was done as much for convenience in using the Google Measuring tool as it was anything else.  It obviously left out the distances between tee and green, which might reduce the total yardage of your measurements somewhat, so your claim that its a superior method to Mikes doesn't fly with me.

As to your statement "The methodology also reflects how they thought of the course in the beginning.  This wasn't cart ball, so it would have been a bit unusual for long treks between every hole."   If Willie C really did route it, Mike provided two examples of his known routings from the same time period, and one included crossing fw.  The other included long walks.  So, based on contemporaneous evidence, rather than your critical analysis, I suggest your statement is likely incorrect, and that any of our routings without crossing fw may be incorrect.

David, I simply think we can discuss all of this without your constant insults.

Mike,

I will concede the point to DM that the 2050 yardage may or may not be valid, because of May's distance from the project, and even with TMac's info, which I basically trust.  See below.

In addition to my points above, I think your translation of the routings also shows that TCC and Essex apparently had little problem abandoning most holes of the first routing when improving their golf course, and may suggest the same was true at MH, discounting the idea (which I actually shared with DM) that the hole names would show us where the course ran.  Without trying to insult anyones perceptions here, I am not sure we can know if clues based on hole names, other course yardages, etc. are the best evidence at this point.  

I had another thought, realizing its secondary evidence, but how long were the best courses in Scotland at this time that he had competed on?  How long were the two courses Willie laid out at this time?  Would it make most sense that the total length would mirror those courses, and be more valid than May's 80 year later article, which might have transposed numerals and/or simply recopied something previously in error?

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

That's all very possible.   Even David's routing may be correct to some degree, but I think reasonable people would concede all of our theories are wholly incomplete and unprovable based on limited evidence at our disposal.

One thing to consider about Willie's courses abroad is that he was designing them for experienced players....I don't know how long Machrie was at the time, for instance, but the fact that he was dealing with mostly beginners here may have influenced him as well.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

Reportedly Campbell did lay out the course initially and so far as I know there is nothing in the historical record refuting this.

But as for the rest you are confusing yourself here.   You are the one with an agenda, as your post a few ago demonstrated.   You are here to run down Campbell to try and build up Leeds.

I've got nothing against either Campbell or Leeds.  I am just curious what happened.   And I don't know how much of Campbell's work was including in the 18 hole course.   Your mentor is the one who suggested that some of the original course may have been dropped for the supposed long nine and then incorporated back into the original 18, and I don't recall you accusing him of having an agenda.   But that is because at the time you both were clinging to the notion that the original course was laid out by the members.  Now that it is obvious it wasn't you move to tearing down the original so you can exaggerate Leeds contribution.
_______________________________

Jeff Brauer,

I don't give a damn about CAD measurements.  You cannot start with a stick routing and then pretend to know how long the course was.  

And again confuse honesty with insults.   For example, I find your last post quite insulting, especially the parts where you equate what you do around here with what I do, but I know that you probably just don't know any better and thought you were being honest.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

If you think you've proven that Willie Campbell designed Myopia's first nine holes, I'm glad you've convinced yourself, I guess.

I certainly don't need to do anything to enhance Leeds' architectural reputation...the contemporaneous record from all of his peers in this country and abroad already did that quite thoroughly.

Have a nice day.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Mike used the right methodolgy on the TCC routing. I looked at it and many features like roads and property lines were the same then and now.  While its possible that he made a few wrong assumptions as to where greens and tees lie, it looks pretty damn close to my eye.

I understand that he is relying on the veracity of a stick drawing from the old days, and depending on the source of that drawing, it may or may not be accurate.

I don't see where I equate anything I do with what you do. I did point out that you have made some mistakes (as have we all) with your methods.  By your standards, that is just honesty, not insults.  But, I am insulted by your posts often, too.  Most of the time, its just the air of unearned superiority you project.  In other cases, its the way you accuse others (like Mike) of having an agenda to cover your own.  And in other cases, its how you cleverly use insults to try to mask the fact that your argument has little to nothing to back it up.  And perhaps I am just insulted that you think you bringing historical agendas to a discussion group is the right thing to do, and expecting no discussion!

As I said earlier, I doubt anyone is really buying that stchick at this time.  Most have skedaddled this thread or site completely.  Mike and I are willing to continue a civil discussion on possible routings of Myopia just for fun.  If you think it more than that at this point, I respectfully suggest you find a more historically oriented place to vet your opinions.

[DMoriarty]

I too looked at Mike's stick drawing yardages, and I think they are a joke, as is any effort to conclude accurate distances from a stick drawing where the exact locations of the greens and tees cannot be determined.

As for the rest, you seem to think I care about your opinion of me, even though I keep telling you that I don't.   So far as I can tell you have little to offer here except for your running dialogue on how much you don't like me and my methods.   Considering the company you keep in these matters, I take your dislike of me to be high praise indeed.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well Mike, there you have it!  Even though you matched green and tee sites to existing features that were in place then, it just cannot be done!  I agree its at best an estimate, but then, trying to figure out any part of history with this kind of info really is.

What do we think is more accurate - scaled maps or old newspaper articles, records, etc.?  I put my money on maps.  It is possible in CAD to scale aerials, old maps, new maps, etc. very closely, with just one known dimension.  Some of the existing roads on those maps make that very possible.

As David says, its possible that you may have mislocated a few greens or tees that don't correspond closely to known features, but overall, your excersize may contribute something to our understanding, even if not in stand alone fashion.

David,

We have noted you think Mike's excersize is a joke. 

I have already agreed that part of participation on this thread is the personal grudge side of things.  In terms of pure historic contribution, I would still think that pointing out the errors in your logic and method help keep this thread "fair and balanced" for whoever happens to read it in the future.  Hopefully, a casual reader who googles to one of your posts will read far enough through the thread to at least find out that multiple contemporaneous analyzers disagree with your methods, lest your ideas gain any more credibility than they deserve.

For that, I think history will be forever grateful.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

You just go right a head and keep telling yourself that, but for you to pretend you are "fair and balanced" after the shit you have pulled (with your creepy buddy and without) is beyond the pale.

[Terry Lavin]

Just thought I'd stop bye the parallel universe and say hello...

[Mike Cirba]

Hi Terry,

Thanks for stopping in to say hello!

Hope all is well with you and yours.

[Terry Lavin]

Hi Terry,

Thanks for stopping in to say hello!

Hope all is well with you and yours.

Tis!

[MCirba]

I was doing a bit of digging on the architectural origins of Essex County Club and came across this Boston Globe 1908 article that provided a good description of Myopia Hunt Club at the time.
What I found relevant to this thread was the contention that Willie Campbell was one of those who believed that the Myopia property and soil was not suitable for golf, although later apparently admitted his mistaken notion.    It's a big article so I hope it's fairly readable for folks.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Cue the music..…"Memories...…."


Does WC not thinking the soil is good suggest he didn't route it, as some have claimed?  Or that he routed it despite his objections?  Just asking.

[MCirba]

Cue the music..…"Memories...…."


Does WC not thinking the soil is good suggest he didn't route it, as some have claimed?  Or that he routed it despite his objections?  Just asking.

Good question, Jeff my good man.

Apparently the very idea of golf on that land was a heated point of debate within the club but one thing I think we can reasonably conclude is that the club asked Willie Campbell's opinion or that he otherwise offered it independently.

For what it's worth, I believe both stories are true.   I think the "Master of the Hounds" and friends (Appleton had a private course on his property since 1892, if memory serves) plotted out a golf course sometime in the early spring of 1894 and I also believe they brought Willie Campbell over once he arrived in the states to ask his opinion, which may have caused revisions from earlier plans.   That seems to me to be the most plausible explanation.

[MCirba]

Jeff,

I think what some of the debate that took place here years ago primarily missed is the fact that golf had been played in and around Boston at private country estates for a few years before Willie Campbell's arrival in this country at the end of March in 1894.

Guys like R.M. Appleton, Herbert Leeds, A.P Gardner, and T. Watson Merrill had already been playing golf for some time (one 1894 account mentions golf had been played in Boston for four years at that point), and as mentioned, Appleton had a private course on his family estate in Ipswitch. 

The day before Campbell was to begin teaching duties, this April 8, 1894 Boston Globe article points out that the game already had a stronghold among several prominent Boston citizens.   

If you recall, the Weeks Myopia history book mentions that Appleton, Gardner, and Merrill laid out the rough course after the snows melted in the spring of 1894 and some three months later, around June 1, 1894, the course opened for play.   We also know the first tournament was held on June 17th, 1894.   

So yes, I believe both stories are true.




The following article from the same paper appearing May 20th, 1894 mentions some additional private estate courses as well as some of the same cast of characters already well immersed in the game.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


Thanks, but I got to thinking, why do I want to re-visit that train wreck? 

[MCirba]

Mike,


Thanks, but I got to thinking, why do I want to re-visit that train wreck?

Another good question Jeff.

I'd simply respond by saying that I believe these reports validate a number of things discussed or conjectured on the thread and provide a fuller picture of what actually happened back then.   I know I feel better and believe I have a more complete understanding after having discovered them.   That and $1.90 gets me a 16 oz. coffee at Wawa, but my OCD is quieted for the moment.

Speaking of trains, do you think you could see the landforms at Pine Valley were a bit unique to south Jersey from the observation car of the train back then?   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, I believe you could.  Max speeds on those lines wasn't that high.....


I am not sure what the argument was all about.  That the story was more marketing than actual fact?  Supposedly Crump had ridden the area on horse earlier?


I agree there is no problem with trying to find out more detail about history of golf courses.  My problem was certain people went in with an agenda to change history, or at least attribution.  I'm with you, I am sure WC had some input here and there, but Leeds probably gets credit for what is there now, for the most part.  If we find out WC laid out holes, 2, 3 and 6 or whatever, or suggested a buried elephant in the 9th green, I am all for it.  I think we all agreed it would be interesting to have been in on all those conversations.

[MCirba]

Jeff,

I'm not sure if this has ever been posted prior, as a lot of pictures on old threads disappear for a variety of reasons but I think this April 1899 Boston Evening Transcript article makes clear both the attribution as well as what was new, what was changed, and what was retained when the course went from 9 holes to 18.   

If one accepts that there was both an original nine hole course (with hole names a bit different on the original 1894 iteration that did not include the "hill holes", today's 14, 15, & 16) and then the subsequent Long Nine course where the 1898 US Open was played, it seems reasonable to assume that not very much of the original nine remained after this iteration.   Probably the holes closest today to their original iteration are today's 2 (although a hundred yards shorter, 8, and 12. 

I do wish there were a map of it somewhere one of us might stumble upon.

[MCirba]

If there is any remaining doubt that the "Hill Holes" did not exist originally, this May 1895 Scribners Magazine snippet indicates that the final hole is the "Pond" hole, which ends at today's 13th green, although the original hole played much shorter with a tee over in what are today the woods left of the Women's tee near a pond.   

[MCirba]

The club men who purportedly staked out the first Myopia Hunt golf course (Appleton, Merrill, and Gardner) had all been playing golf for some time at both Brookline and Essex County, as well as at Appleton's private estate six-hole course.   

A few days before the first tournament at Myopia this Boston Globe article called them "experts" at the game.