Willie Campbell & Myopia

[TEPaul]

"With regards to the administrative records, was Myopia a new club and if so how good would the records have been back then?"


Niall:

No, it was not new at all. It had been a hunting and polo club for more than a couple of decades before golf was introduced the the club in 1894. It is still known as Myopia Hunt Club.

The administrative records were good as they almost always were with clubs like that---eg a President, Treasurer, Secretary (Executive Committee) and a Board of Directors that almost always included the chairmen of the various committees. At a Hunt Club, generally the most prominent person administratively is known as the Master of the Hunt or "Master of the Fox Hounds."

[Mike Cirba]

What did/do they do with the hounds in the winter?  Are they housed and fed inside and are they run outside for regular exercise?

I'd assume professional help is hired and responsible?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

Those articles TMac quoted in his IMO piece were I think American newspapers, so they would know who they had. 

Back to the question of why those guys were up there out of season, I hate to stir the pot, but could they have gone up there, sans family for activities that were family unfriendly, a la gambling or girlfriends?  While not universal, I am sure it was not unheard of.  Maybe WC did do all the work, and the "club members laying out the course" was code for "club members getting laid."

[TEPaul]

"What did/do they do with the hounds in the winter?  Are they housed and fed inside and are they run outside for regular exercise?
I'd assume professional help is hired and responsible?"


Mike:

Definitely. In the history and world of fox hunting the hounds are massively important and they are treated with great care and effort. Since it's the hounds that basically find and suss out the fox, and since it is essentially the hounds that the fox hunters on horses follow, and often at great speed while jumping over fences and ditches and creeks and whatnot, they are really important in the etiquette and strategies of fox hunting.

All formal hunts and fox hunting clubs had and have fairly elaborate kennels and "runs" for their hounds and a number of handlers to handle them throughout the year. This is some of what the Master of the Hunt or the Master of the Fox Hounds, that RM Appleton was, oversees for the club, but essentially the Master of the Hounds is the one who runs the hunt club.

Radnor Hunt is within sight of this farm and I can hear the hounds from time to time. Their sound is not that of a normal dog and they are definitely not your normal dog either. I'm not sure they even call them dogs; they call them hounds. To call a hound a dog at a fox hunting club might be about the same as calling your rifle a gun in boot camp in Paris Island----doing that gets you smacked upside the head and hard. Or perhaps to a lesser extent calling a bunker a trap at a respectable traditionalist golf club.  

[TEPaul]

Jeffrey:

I think you're making too much of this North Shore and Boston thing during the winter and spring of 1894. I don't think we need to speculate on whether Appleton, Gardner and Merrill were slipping out of Boston the 10-20 miles to Hamilton to get laid on the sly or anything like that; I think it's more a matter of the fact that if they were intent on introducing golf to the Myopia Hunt Club in 1894 it would not have been that much of a deal for them to have just gone from Boston up to Hamilton for a day or so on a weekend and walk the property pacing off the distances of holes and staking out the spots for tees and fairways and greens. This is apparently what they did in the late winter or early spring of 1894 or at least that is what the club records recorded they did. If they got laid on the side after that then good for them. Actually the world of hunting, polo, equestrianism and such or basically the world of stables could be and was a pretty randy place from time to time for some reason. I suspect more people got laid in those barns and stables than in bed at home or away. Those are some pretty earthy sports, Mr Jeffrey, Sir, and particularly fox hunting, and don't you forget it. The idea is to go hell bent for leather across the countryside on wonderful horses, blowing horns, cracking whips, yelling tallyho and shit and all that. You get sweaty, you get wet and dirty and muddy and both sexes have historically done it together so at the end of the hunt when back around the stables or clubhouses or parts of them like Myopia's "Raving Ward" I guess they just get to feeling earthy and down and dirty and randy and what do you think often follows that and particularly when men and women do it together, my good man?

[DMoriarty]

Reportedly, by 1890. they were no longer fox hunting at Hamilton, but still used the hounds to  run "drag."

Didn't you read the April 15 and June 10 articles I posted a few days ago?

Mike Cirba,

I did.  Regarding the April article, is it a shocker to you that a club that was planning on introducing golf for the season appointed a sub-committee that would be in charge of so doing?   It isn't shock to me.   Only you could go from that to the conclusion that these guys (not even the exact same guys, by the way) definitely designed the course.

Regarding the June 10th article, it simply previewed the upcoming opening that would occur on Bunker Hill Day.   That is all there is to it.   Yet you see this as some sort of confirmation that some of these guys (again not exactly the same guys) designed the course.

As usual your logic amounts to little more than wishful thinking.  

________________________________________________

I don't get it.  We have three different reports that Willie Campbell laid out the course. We have two different reports indicating that the course had not yet been laid out as of mid-May, thus further contradicting the history book from 80 years later.  We also know that Campbell was involved at the sister club (Country Club) all spring with these Myopia guys, and that he was laying out multiple courses in the area with which these guys at around the same time.  

And so far no one has brought forth anything contradicting any of this or even calling any of it into question.  Yes, TEPaul thinks he remembers that the records state that three members laid out the course, but it is far from clear what of his information comes from the actual records and what comes from the later history book.   All he has brought forward is a passage from a book written 80 some years later indicating that the executive committee approved the addition of golf!

So what is there to discuss, really?  

And what of this hypocritical notion about how the members must have designed it and Campbell must laid it out?  What support does it have?  Other than the wish of some to salvage the legend despite very strong evidence to the contrary?  

Don't get me wrong.  It is possible that the members were involved in the initial design process, at least in some supervisory capacity, but shouldn't such a notion have at least some factual support before we start drawing that conclusion?    

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

I probably shouldn't relay this story in public but I once dated a very upper crust young lady, and at one point her mother took me aside to fill me in on how things worked in their circles.  Basically, she said if we did get married, she would expect that I would have affairs, but that I should be discrete, adding to keep any affairs "within my social class."  She then commented that they had once caught a niece consorting with a horse stable boy and their reaction was it would be less embarassing if they had caught her consorting with the horses themselves......

That is my complete understanding of high society, if you can call it that.

David,

I forgot to thank you for all the interesting info you have also brought forth here, including potential routing recreations for Myopia.  Good stuff all.  As to what it all means, I am lost.  My only earlier point is that we may be arguing about nothing.  I think most have commented that if Willie was there he probably did something, if the members were there, they probably did something, etc.  Going beyond that is going to be a pissing contest not seen since the....oh never mind.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I probably shouldn't relay this story in public but I once dated a very upper crust young lady, and at one point her mother took me aside to fill me in on how things worked in their circles.  Basically, she said if we did get married, she would expect that I would have affairs, but that I should be discrete, adding to keep any affairs "within my social class."  She then commented that they had once caught a niece consorting with a horse stable boy and their reaction was it would be less embarassing if they had caught her consorting with the horses themselves......
That is my complete understanding of high society, if you can call it that."



Jeffrey:

You know, in my opinion, and believe me I've seen it first hand and lived it my entire life----I just don't think it could be captured more accurately and succinctly than what you just said there.

[Tom MacWood]

TMac,

I won't get into this, because I am the Sgt. Shultz of this topic...."I know nothink!"  But I am tending to agree with Mike C that somehow both the members and WC had some input, with Campbell perhaps "laying out" and building the greens on the ground, since pros were brought over to do triple duty in those days, and just getting it done seemed to be the order of the day back then.

I did spend some time reading the early pages of this thread last night (insomnia) and wanted to thank you for your earlier research and writings on Willie C.  He was quite a fascinating character.

Two questions came to mind in reading your research.  First, would his tendency to challenge the Open winners to later matches and then embarrass them be considered "sporting" in those days?  Did that affect his reputation?

And possibly related, why was he relegated so soon (five or six years max) to the "lowly" public courses after working at high end clubs?  Did they let him go as his energy sapped from early stages of cancer, because he continued some of his possibly abrasive ways (golf challenges?), or did he go willingly to promote public golf with his wife?

I didn't see anything in those quick reads discussing why he moved to Franklin Park, but I may have missed it.  Thanks in advance.

In researching Campbell for that essay I did not detect any bad blood, actually just the opposite. Old Tom, Old Willie Dunn, David Strath, and others had popularized the big match event, but it had lost popularity until Campbell re-popularized it with his well publicized challenge matches. He brought attention to all top professionals of his day, which was good for everybody. If anything Campbell was looked upon as a tragic figure because he never won the Open despite being the most dominant match player of the day, and he had his chances. Nerves were said to be his weakness in metal play. Bernard Darwin wrote a most poignant account of Campbell throwing away the Open at Prestwick. After the event on either side of the shop were upturned buckets "on one sat Willie Campbell and on the other his caddie, both weeping bitterly..."

Franklin Park was not a lowly public course. Unlike Van Cortland Park, which was free to play, FP charged a hefty $.50 per 18 hole round, which was a lot of money in 1897. They also had rule that no beginners were permitted to play. The original concept was to attract all the club golfers in the region with a very good course (said to be the longest nine in the country), a convenient location, and Campbell, one of the top instructors in the country.

[Tom MacWood]

With regards to the administrative records, was Myopia a new club and if so how good would the records have been back then ?

Niall

I wonder about that myself since they apparently had no record of Campbell being a professional at the club, no record of him laying out the original nine, no record of the original lay out of the course, and no record of how precisely or when the course was altered. I suppose it is possible the author of the club history neglected to look at the club records and that is why his account lacks this information, but I doubt it.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

With your #533, interestingly, you and I are in complete agreement. You see, that can actually happen if you ever decide to use your head on here to actually analyze something correctly in the context of historical facts.

Brauer, you speculative, nonsensical, good-for-nothing so and so---how could you have even suggested such a thing about Willie Campbell, much less actually mentioned it on this website??  Why are you trying to minimize this otherwise arguably great man, or semi-great man, or semi-great and/or tragic great man, semi-marginally/semi-tragic great man, or.......?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

Okay, guilty as charged.  I would be more embarrassed only by....oh forget it.  But boy, if I can get you two guys on agreement for anything, I must be a friccing genius!

TMac,

Thanks for the info, and as mentioned above, I was just speculating.  When I reread the articles you posted I did get the sense of respect for his playing ability, etc., but he left so quick I thought it was possible that there was a reason.

As to why Myopia didn't record him as their club pro, is it possible he tecnically wasn't?  He worked a lot of places in a short time frame and is it not possible he just used those clubs and later Franklin Park as a base of operations for independent golf lessons, etc>

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
I don't think anyone cares what you think about a subject you clearly know nothing about.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

With your #534, there is a very good and recorded reason the club or its centennial history book did not record or mention Campbell laying out the course if by laying out the course you mean the placements of tees, fairways, green sites and the distances and directions of the holes of the original 1894 nine hole Myopia course. I'm sure he probably did something for them after that fact but for some reason the club may not have seen it as significant enough to mention in their administrative records even if they apparently did not object to some newspapers of the time mentioning what they did report. There is probably a very good and historically logical reason for that.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
I don't think anyone cares what you think about a subject you clearly know nothing about."


You are really showing your true colors now Tom MacWood and to be honest with you I am just loving it. Myopia cares what I think about their architectural history and ultimately that's who I care about. In the broad scheme of things with them, with their history, with the details of their perceived, received and accepted history, you are a total non-credible nonentity and that is the way it should be and will be.

Your last statement seems to prove that even you are aware of that now and your bitterness shows it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I don't want to get involved with your ongoing personal battle with TP, but really, he is the USGA architecture archivist, MH's contact person for the same, has been given access to club historic records, etc.  Just off the top of my head, I would suspect the USGA and MH both care a bit about what he thinks. 

Your statement would accurately read, "Two people on gca.com don't care what TePaul thinks" but in the so called real world, I don't think you made an accurate statement, really

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
It has nothing to do with bitterness. This thread has been going on for several pages and the only thing you have offered is innuendo, speculation and conjecture. You clearly do not know anything about the subject matter.

Jeff
I'm sure if you put your mind to it you too could become a USGA architecture archivist, in fact I believe you are on your way. 

[TEPaul]

Jeffrey:

You just mentioned the "real world" to Tom MacWood. I suppose to him or anyone else what that actually means may be open to some interpretation---not unlike mentioning the word "normal" to a good psychoanalyst who will invariably come back with: "What do you think that means?"

[TEPaul]

"TEP
It has nothing to do with bitterness. This thread has been going on for several pages and the only thing you have offered is innuendo, speculation and conjecture. You clearly do not know anything about this subject matter."


Tom:

I know everything about the subject matter that is available or extant with or from anyone I know and that sure includes this website and any of the people on it. I know more about it than you do, and by a mile, because I have been to that club and researched its subject matter of this time and subject. Unfortunately you haven't. All you have is some newspaper articles that we have all considered for some years now. Very obviously you don't choose to believe me in what the club's own records of that time say on this subject. I can actually understand that coming from you. You are apparently implying that they can't be right because you don't agree with them because you think they conflict with what you think your newspaper articles mean. So your natural reaction seems to be to blame the messenger and/or claim the club, the source of where the facts of these histories emanate from, are fictional or fantasy, or engaging in some kind of conspiracy, iconization of someone, minimization of someone else or some such. And Myopia is not the only one----you've done this in exactly the same way with other significant clubs and courses and architects.

What you are doing and saying on this website and on this subject and some others is sad, Tom MacWood, very sad, in my opinion and in the growing opinions of numerous others. You aren't doing anything or anybody any good at all, most of all yourself.

But please don't take any of this too seriously; the last thing I want to see is for somebody such as yourself to get emotionally hurt or too angry with something like golf course architecture or its history. This is GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's DG; it's a discussion group for anyone and everyone's opinion. It is not some court of law as Moriarty tries to make it or some scientific policy review panel as you seem to want it to be (laughably I might add the way you reason and discuss things on here). What I care about are the club's themselves and how we can work with them and provide them with information and analysis that presents the true facts to them so they can present their histories most factually and historically accurately. In this way, which I think is the best way and the only beneficial way I am winning and you are losing and from your last few posts and your attitude that seems to be apparent, even to you now!

And so for now---"Goodnight Mrs Callabash, wherever you are."

[Tom MacWood]

TMac,

Thanks for the info, and as mentioned above, I was just speculating.  When I reread the articles you posted I did get the sense of respect for his playing ability, etc., but he left so quick I thought it was possible that there was a reason.

As to why Myopia didn't record him as their club pro, is it possible he tecnically wasn't?  He worked a lot of places in a short time frame and is it not possible he just used those clubs and later Franklin Park as a base of operations for independent golf lessons, etc>

He battled health problems the last decade of his life and that effected his play. Those health issues were the primary reason he came to America. He died when he was 38. I've read half dozen of Campbell's obituaries and they said he was the pro at Myopia. There are scores of articles from 1896 that mention him as the pro at Myopia. Why do you believe he may not have technically been their pro?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Why do I think he may not have been pro?

Just trying to explain why the club records didn't mention it, when all others were mentioned over time.

You think they didn't know what they were writing.  I suspect they do.  And, in the word parsing mode, a pro who regularly taught at Myopia (among others) might have been referred to as the pro at Myopia.  He was a pro.  And he did spend time at Myopia.  So maybe the newspapers didn't know the contractual relationship when they reported it.

Was it reported that WBThomas sponsored him to be pro at Myopia like Ross was recruited, or do we assume that?  Or if he was pro at Brooline and they were related, perhaps he was contracted to be pro there and was on temporary loan.

Just speculation, but that is what so much of what goes on here on these topics, so I gather I am allowed to do it as much as you, David and others.  It seems just a plausible, but it is just speculation. I am not as emotionally involved with these old dead guys as you are, and if I am wrong (probably better than a 50% chance) it turrns out its no big whup to me.

[TEPaul]

"Just speculation, but that is what so much of what goes on here on these topics, so I gather I am allowed to do it as much as you, David and others.  It seems just a plausible, but it is just speculation. I am not as emotionally involved with these old dead guys as you are, and if I am wrong (probably better than a 50% chance) it turrns out its no big whup to me."


You know, Jeff, that is a very interesting point and one I think we touched on when we last spoke. It is speculation of course (on the part of all of us) but it is certainly possible that Campbell was a pro for Myopia at the same time another one was. I will check the book and my records but I recall that Robert White was the pro and greenkeeper for Myopia in 1896 and perhaps for a year or two after that before Myopia's long time pro/greenkeeper John (Jack) Jones took over.

I think it is more than possible given the way things worked back in that very early era that Robert White may've been the actual professional on the payroll of Myopia when Campbell played tournament golf for Myopia and apparently gave golf lessons. I don't know that White was a much of a golf teacher or ever did that kind of thing.

Of course we can all try to do the research which shouldn't be that hard to do from that era but my recollection is that Campbell played tournament golf for Myopia for only a year----1896.

It could be more than possible that Campbell just played tournament golf for Myopia without being paid for it by Myopia because of course that is name recognition with a club and he may've just taught or given golf lessons at Myopia for a fee without actually being on the club's payroll. He may've even supplied them with clubs and balls for a fee without being on their payroll. That would make some sense since he seemed to be doing so many other things at other places and clubs at the same time.

This is an historical aspect some of us may not realize today. For instance, some think George Fazio was the pro at Pine Valley. He actually wasn't the way some think of that today. Pine Valley had a regular and permanent club pro at that time and Fazio basically just played tournament golf for Pine Valley.

We can see this and confirm it in many instances for years and decades. Just look at the tournament listings right up until the time the modern PGA TOUR was formed in the late 1960s. In all the years from the beginning of golf in America those pros played tournament golf with a club always listed after their names until the PGA TOUR was formed in the late 1960s or almost 1970.

By the way, who was the first executive director of the PGA TOUR? THAT was perhaps one of the most unbelievable job change in the history of American golf. Why did he do it?

I sure have my own theory about it, and why he did it but the reason I think he did it is not exactly something either he or anyone else would actually record for posterity!

[DMoriarty]

TMac,

I don't want to get involved with your ongoing personal battle with TP, but really, he is the USGA architecture archivist, MH's contact person for the same, has been given access to club historic records, etc.  Just off the top of my head, I would suspect the USGA and MH both care a bit about what he thinks. 

Your statement would accurately read, "Two people on gca.com don't care what TePaul thinks" but in the so called real world, I don't think you made an accurate statement, really

This brings up an interesting point, although indirectly.  My understanding is that the USGA Archives isn't being created to tell us what to believe about these clubs, but rather was supposed to be a collection of contemporaneous material - a research resource - so that people could examine the source material and decide for themselves.     

I am having trouble understanding, then, why the USGA's representative and apparent contact with Myopia would expect us to rely on nothing but what his interpretation of unavailable material.   That certainly conflicts with the mandate of this project doesn't it?

TEPaul, is this the type of information we should expect from the USGA archives?  You and other "archivists" telling us what to believe about these clubs, without any back up whatsoever?
____________________________________________ 

Jeff,

I agree that people most likely care what TEPaul thinks, and that is a large part of the fundamental underlying problem here and elsewhere.  Not because it is TEPaul, but because he is refusing to back up his conclusions with anything resembling verifiable facts.   Whether it is TEPaul, Tom MacWood, me, or anyone else, their conclusions must be open to challenge and their facts open for review.  That's the way it has to work if we are at all interested in getting to the truth. 

[TEPaul]

"This brings up an interesting point, although indirectly.  My understanding is that the USGA Archives isn't being created to tell us what to believe about these clubs, but rather was supposed to be a collection of contemporaneous material - a research resource - so that people could examine the source material and decide for themselves.    

I am having trouble understanding, then, why the USGA's representative and apparent contact with Myopia would expect us to rely on nothing but what his interpretation of unavailable material.   That certainly conflicts with the mandate of this project doesn't it?

TEPaul, is this the type of information we should expect from the USGA archives?  You and other "archivists" telling us what to believe about these clubs, without any back up whatsoever?"



David:

Very fine questions indeed.

Of course not; the USGA Architecture Archive, and most certainly as of now, very much wants and hopes to produce and provide a collection of contemporaneous material---a research resource (as you call it and they call it and I call it)---so that people could examine it and decide for themselves (what it means).

But then you ask and apparently ask me why the USGA's representative and apparent contact with Myopia would expect us to rely on nothing but what HIS INTERPRETATION of unavailable material (is). You go on to say that certainly conflicts with the mandate of this project doesn't it?

I can only answer you by saying this:

The USGA Architecture Archive is most definitely NOT GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and its Discussion Group (DG) which is provided by Ran Morrissett to allow us all to express our OPINIONS about golf course architecture and its history and to discuss same!

The USGA Architecture Archive will not and did not initially intend to provide an interactive Discussion Group (DG) like this website has even though that was actually discussed as a possibilty at one of the rare meetings at Far Hills a couple of years ago. At that meeting at the USGA there were some pretty impressive people in the room and the only ones from GOLFCLUBATLAS. com were Bob Crosby and me. We looked at each other and then at them and basically responded in unision; "Are you nuts? Do you see what goes on on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com?"

Practically everyone in the room including the person who proposed it said they did know what goes on on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. So then we asked them if they could provide a permanent moderator to control what goes on every day on all kinds of subjects and they said if necessary they could. They even explained to us why they, at that time, would like to have a DG like GOLFCLUBATLAS.com, perhaps as part of an as an adjunct and supplement to the USGA Architecture Archive.

Thankfully, and, in my opinion, sanely, they seem to have changed their minds about that for a variety of reasons.

There is more to come on this subject and those questions of yours, David Moriarty. Do you want to hear them and the rest of this progression and story?

[TEPaul]

David:

The subject of these last few posts of ours has nothing to do directly with Myopia or Campbell or that subject and this thread but it is important nonetheless. Would you agree this subject deserves its own thread on here?