Mike
First you tell us they were traveling out to Hamilton on horseback a la Paul Revere and/or John Adams. Then you tell us any simpleton could lay out a golf course in 1894. And then you try to prove simpletons did design the course by giving us the article with the subcommittee (two of your three are involved) and the article of the four experts playing on opening day (although you claim it is an exhibition prior to the opening). Your three are among the four, with fourth being WB Thomas, the man responsible for bring Campbell to America. You then tell us these two article taken together are a strong indication the Squire & Co were involved in the design. And to top it off you found one of the three visiting his in-laws in Hamilton in the spring, which proves he was in the area presumably on horseback. Anyone could be in the area via relatively short train trip. This may be the most far fetched and convoluted attempt in golfclubatlas history.
Tom MacWood,
All of us, yourself included, engage in speculative discussions at times and in retrospect, all of us make some comments that are foolish and historically irrelevant.
That being said, I reject most of the categorizations you presented above out of hand.
Before I found those articles and posted them here recently, it was you who had presented the story of the three members as having absolutely no other support other than what you suggested was Weeks' speculation. In fact, you regularly derided the story, mocking Appleton as the "Keeper of the Hounds". It was you who suggested that the whole story was made from cheesecloth, suggesting that this was yet another attempt to create a legend or puff up the membership history, all at the expense of the poor laboring foreign golf pro who actually did the work, and you insinuated that Weeks was simply making it up, or in effect, lying to the reader.
What I found and presented here is not conclusive, but it does support Weeks in circumstance, and it also supports what Tom Paul tells us he has seen of the club administrative records.
So what have we learned new here with the articles I posted?
1) We learned that at least two of the three members who Weeks tells us staked out the first nine holes after the snows melted that spring were appointed sometime before 4/15/1894 as a subcommittee charged with bringing golf to Myopia.
2) We learned that the third member, AP Gardner, was in Hamilton during that same time period, spring 1894.
3) We learned that these members were known as golf "experts", such as it was back then, before the course at Myopia was even opened.
4) We learned that sheep were purchased in May and fielded on the golf course land, and we learned (from articles David and I produced) that you could watch all the golf holes from a high vantage point by mid-May, both at least suggesting that the location of those holes had been determined.
5) We learned that despite protestations first that South Hamilton was a summer colony only that indeed members were there during this period and we learned despite protestations to the contrary that there was a foot and a half of snow on the ground that golfers were playing in Boston on April 11th, so we really don't know when the "snows melted", as Weeks described, but presumably they were prior to April 11th, so the three members could have done their work as early as March.
6) We learned that as early as April 15th, Willie Campbell was Essex CC bound for the season, with his assignment beginning in June and ending in September of that year.
7) We also learned from the articles that you posted that the course was "laid out" by Willie Campbell supposedly just a "few days" before the opening in mid-June. I'm surprised no one questioned this, because what the heck could his work have involved Tom, if he could do it in no time at all and have it opened for play in just a "few days"? I mean, what the heck were the other members doing from early spring til then if Campbell could just snap his fingers and voila!, a golf course appeared out of thin air in just a "few days"?
My "theories" are simply that both the membership was involved, and that Campbell was involved. While none of us but Tom Paul have seen the administrative records, I don't believe Tom would make up a story here and I seriously doubt Weeks did as well. When you and David call my supporting evidence "ludicrous", or say I'm "embarrassing" myself, I take heart in knowing that at heart you and David have seen no more of the real evidence than you can from the comfort of your living room. If you were indeed interested in the truth more than just trying to embarrass Tom Paul here I would think you'd dig deeper and I think others here realize that too.
Moreover, as regards course architecture during that time period, it does appear from much of the work by Campbell, et.al, that indeed it was "simpleton" in nature. What else could be had in a day's work, Tom? It was simply locating tees, greens, and perhaps some cross hazards, and anyone with a familiarity with the game at all could have designed the type of courses that were the order of the day in this country at that time. The courses lacked sophistication, interest, and elegance, but they were functional for the nascent game.
Frankly, I think the pros did the work because that was deemed to be manual labor back then, and not a pursuit for "gentlemen". I recognize that this is politically incorrect in today's parlance, but it was the reality.