Willie Campbell & Myopia

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff
One of the more frustrating aspects of dealing with you on these historical questions (this one, Merion, etc) is the fact you often have your facts wrong. How can you draw any intelligent conclusions when your information is wrong so often. Bush did not mention the date of the annual meeting, and Bush did not mention anything about the Squire & Co footing it across the site, as you claimed the other day.

Bush wrote something called 'Golf: the triumph of Hope over Experience.' I don't know if that was part of an early club history, or just what it was written or why and when it was written.

[Mike Cirba]

Some quotes and observations from the Weeks book;

"Appleton and his partners reported to the executive committee that nine holes could be ready for play in three months, and the speed with which their recommendation was followed is evident in this terse entry in the Club records by Secretary S. Dacre Bush:"

At a meeting of the Executive Committee about March, 1894 it was decided to build a golf links on the Myopia grounds.   Accordingly, the grounds were examined, and in opposition from a number of members because the ground was so rough, nine greens were sodded and cut, and play began about June 1st, 1894.   Members and associates soon began to show much interest in the game, and the first tournaments was held June 18th, 1894.   About twenty-five entries.   Won by Herbert Leeds of Boston who was scratch.   Score, first round 58, second round 54.   Total 112.   Laurence Curtis made 63-59 - 122.  W.B. Thomas 63-62 - 125.   The second tournament was held on July 4th, 1894.   About twenty entires.   Won by Herbert C. Leeds, scratch 52-61 - 113."

"We know that this improvised links was on the grounds of the Club, and those of our fellow member, Dr. S. A. Hopkins, to the north and east of the clubhouse.   Once the nine greens were sodded and cut, all that was needed for the tees were a level space, a box of sand, and a pail of water to moisten the pinch of sand on which the ball was placed.   Nature provided the hazards..."

"That this new course was difficult is evidenced by a note stating that, on June 24, "H. C. Leeds covered the 9 holes in 48 strokes, previous best on record 54."  It goes on facetiously, "Prof. Baxter, fired by the talk, which in warm weather provides ventilation, through headgear for the overheated vacuums of the Myopians, purchased several clubs and having broken one or two without moving the ball eventually succeeded in finishing in 214 strokes.""

"Professor Baxter is a caricature probably written into the Run Book by a sarcastic member of the Hunt.   The feeling that golf was an unworthy intrusion was widespread and would not subside for years;  the horsey members kept to one part of the Club and the golfers in their plus fours to another..."

Later, the book goes into a long section where S. Dacre Bush describes the Long Nine in significant detail.  

Bush's familiarity with the original course is evident in this statement;

"Perhaps no course," writes Dacre Bush, "illustrated so well the evaluation of the game in this country.   The first hole of the original nine-hole course, which is the second of the present course, is a case in point.   This hole was originally 300 yards and it was thought wonderful when anybody did it in five.   The teeing ground for this hole is on rising ground and the remains of no less than four teeling grounds can be distinguished.   Each time the golfers have been put back about twenty-five yards as the game of the players has become longer.   The green is also many yards to the right, and farther along than at first and the hole is now four hundred and fifty-five yards."

That the Run Book was used for documenting golf can be seen in the following;

"That summer of 1896 home-and-home team matches were played against the Newport Golf Club on the links erected by Theodore A. Havermeyer.   The flavor of the soggy, salty day comes through this note in the Myopia Run Book;"

"A team match between the Newport Golf Club and Myopia took place on September 19th.   The Myopia was disappointed by the illness of one of their players, and the inability of another to get away.   The original intention was to play teams of six, but teams of five were played, the match being in a thoroughly sporting and friendly spirit.   There had been heavy rains, and the Links (Newport) was, so to speak, sodden.   The match was also played in thick fog.   At the end of the first round Myopia was 11 holes down.   (Then Myopia rallied.)  The appended telegram gives the results and names of the players.   Myopia won seven holes up."
"NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND"
"LEEDS HALVES WITH COATES, LONGWORTH HALVED WITH HAVERMEYER, APPLETON TWO DOWN WITH RUTHERFORD, HENRY SIX UP WITH COCHRAN, SHAW THREE UP WITH STILLMAN."

The book then goes on in the next several pages to quote directly or paraphrase from several external sources, including the Boston Herald of 1895, the Boston Evening Transcript of 1898, The Golfer's Magazine of 1898, the Boston Journal, and New York Sun.

Given access to these sources, it seems odd that he would have missed the attribution to Campbell in local papers during the Opening Day tournament.   Perhaps something in the club records clarified Campbell's role, because it is very clear that Weeks was indeed working with both internal documents as well as contemporaneous publications.

One related question...did the local newspapers in Boston report the names and dates that the original members at TCC and Essex designed their six hole courses in 1892 and 1893 respectively?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

Good afternoon.

May I say that I was frustrated by your technique of asking deflecting questions?   And some of the things you say are "obvious" and conclusions you draw are anything but obvious to folks with a mindset like mine?

I will admit that I can be wrong sometimes.  In this case, I suggested that the historical record we do know (and presented by David Moriarity) that shows they had meetings, club secretaries, etc. shows that they most likely had club records.  Why have meetings and a secretary if not to record those minutes?

Instead of answering a seemingly simple question, you claim I have facts wrong and go on to say Bush said nothing of this or that.  BTW, I have seen the Bush remembrances, and like you, don't know when they were written.  I presume we can both agree that he penned them before he died?

Here is another question you may not answer, but doesn't the title of "Hope over Experience" suggest they were feeling their own way in designing the course?  And the text I recall suggests that their members laid out the golf course.  You once asked where that story came from, and I gather it probably originated with Bush himself, no?

[Mike Cirba]

I guess the question I'm wondering is this;

What would/should Weeks do or mention if he knew about the news articles mentioning Campbell had "laid out" the course, but internal club minutes talked about the 3 members staking out a routing, and then the hiring or use of Campbell to build and sod the greens and perhaps otherwise try to prepare the new course?

Because I don't think that is far-fetched in the slightest.   I think it's highly possible given the timing of events, including when Campbell arrived here and his concurrent pressing duties at TCC and Essex.

From my perspective, there is no way to come to a conclusion here without examining ALL of the evidence, both external and internal.

It seems to me from the references in the book that Weeks may have indeed done both.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I tend to agree.  A conclusion without either club records or outside contemporaneous sources seems to be likely to be incorrect, although anything is possible.  As I hinted above, I think its anything but obvious that Campbell designed the course, but I really don't know.

I will say this....if Cornish and Whitten had found those three articles that TMac did, they would have had no second thoughts about crediting WC for the design of the original nine holes, so if TMac has appointed himself as Willie's sketch biographer, none of us can criticize him for putting that original course on his list. 

[DMoriarty]

Tom MacWood,

Mike Cirba and Jeff Brauer have not only figured it all out, they are in agreement, so I guess there is nothing more to discuss with them.

Strange, though, because the more I find out about the Weeks' book, the more I wonder how these guys can possibly justify their various theories about the reliability of the Weeks' account.

For example, when Bush wrote what he wrote about the 2nd hole (originally the first) the tee had been moved back four times, and the green had been moved, and the hole was 455 yards!  I've gone back through some of the yardage listings for Myopia, and the first mention I have of the hole having been 455 yards was in 1908.  What is the first mention you have seen of the 455 yard distance?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Not at all.  How does "I don't think we can figure it out" translate to "we have it all figured out?

For that matter, I asked a simple question that didn't involve the Weeks book at all, and both of you keep bringing it back to Weeks.

I quoted TMac's post above:

And I think it is very unlikely there are any administrative records, TEP sold you and us a bill of goods. That is obvious. There is nothing in that history book that would indicate there are any records on the early history of the golf club or golf course, which is why Weeks was forced to rely on Bush's remembrance. And as far as I am concerned the idea that the administrative records don't mention Campbell (for whatever reason) is no excuse for Weeks not knowing. If he did just a minimal amount of research he would uncovered the Campbell connection. The level research that went into this book is really pathetic. Here was my simple question, rephrased a bit.

At one point in the TMac quote he says there were no administrative records.  In another, he suggests they exist, but are wrong to not mention Campbell.  So my question is does TMac think no records exist as he says before he contradicts himself?  I think it unlikely, given the club had a structure.

Have portions been lost?  Maybe.  Is there a reason they don't mention WC?  Probably.  Would the story be clearest if we had those records in front of us?  Certainly.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

I thought you were done with me?  I was so looking forward to that . . .

David,

Not at all.  How does "I don't think we can figure it out" translate to "we have it all figured out?

Because you guys are pretending ambiguity exists in the record where it does not.   To accomplish this, you guys 1) pretend that there are "club records" dealing with the initial creation of the course; 2) pretend that those mystery club records must support Weeks' account even though his book strongly suggests that he had no such records on which to rely; 3) and you then use your pretend records and pretend account as an excuse to discard contemporaneous reports of what happened.

For that matter, I asked a simple question that didn't involve the Weeks book at all, and both of you keep bringing it back to Weeks.

Didn't involve the Weeks book at all?  All you guys have is the Weeks book.   Everything thing you pretend to know about the supposed "administrative records" is necessarily about Weeks.  There are no pretend records without you guys misreading them into Weeks.  Plus, your initial question made no sense.

At one point in the TMac quote he says there were no administrative records.  In another, he suggests they exist, but are wrong to not mention Campbell.  So my question is does TMac think no records exist as he says before he contradicts himself?  I think it unlikely, given the club had a structure.

Either you didn't understand what TomM wrote or you are simply fudging the record again.

TomM wrote that there was nothing in the Weeks book indicating that there are any records on the creation of the golf course.   From what I have been told about the Weeks book, I agree.   Beyond records about the creation of the golf course, I doubt TomM knows or cares what administrative records exist.  

Have portions been lost?  Maybe.  Is there a reason they don't mention WC?  Probably.  Would the story be clearest if we had those records in front of us?  Certainly

.

This is ridiculous.  You cannot assume into existence records to cast doubt on real, tangible accounts of who laid out the course.    

The story would be clearest if we had a time machine, but we don't.  And only a fool would use their desire for a time machine to override contemporaneous accounts of what happened.  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

So you believe Weeks's references to club records, to the "Run Book", to the Leeds scrapbook, to the Bush remembrances were all imagined?

Are you suggesting that Mr. Weeks was something akin to golf history's version of "A Beautiful Mind"?

Weeks clearly had access to the clubs administrative records and history while you and Tom MacWood unfortunately but just as clearly do not.

While that is unfortunate, it's really akin to you both claiming certainty that the moon is made of Swiss cheese without either of you ever having been there.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba, you and Jeff Brauer really ought to read and consider posts before responding.  

I wrote that whatever administrative records there were obviously did not address the creation of the initial course. Otherwise Weeks would not have had to been speculating.  

As for Bush, that was obviously not an administrative record,  despite Weeks' erroneous claim that he was the Club Secretary at the time.   Bush's recollections were obviously written much later, after many iterations of the course. Your own quotes of his leave no doubt about it, yet you still pretend it is an administrative record?  That neither you nor Jeff Brauer seem to be able to comprehend the later timing of the Bush account speaks volumes about your ability and willingness to accurately consider the facts.

____________________________

Above you quoted Weeks quoting Bush: "Perhaps no course," writes Dacre Bush, "illustrated so well the evaluation of the game in this country.   The first hole of the original nine-hole course, which is the second of the present course, is a case in point. . . . "

The word "evaluation" seems to be a mistake.  "Evolution" would make much more sense.   My question to you is whether this was your mistake, or Weeks mistake?   Does the book say "evaluation" or "evolution?"

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

You stated: "Above you quoted Weeks quoting Bush: "Perhaps no course," writes Dacre Bush, "illustrated so well the evaluation of the game in this country.   The first hole of the original nine-hole course, which is the second of the present course, is a case in point. . . . " The word "evaluation" seems to be a mistake.  "Evolution" would make much more sense.   My question to you is whether this was your mistake, or Weeks mistake?   Does the book say "evaluation" or "evolution?"

I have no idea which it states, but would gladly wager that it is Evaluation and NOT Evolution.

You say that makes no sense, except it actually does. The game of golf that was being played in the late 1800s through to the 1920s was constantly being compared or evaluated against the game in Scotland. Likewise the nature of the designs and quality of the courses in America were also. There was a great deal being written on both sides of the Atlantic with those in the UK claiming that the upstart Americans and their courses were no match for those in Scotland while in America, not only was the exact opposite being written but even claims that our players and courses were already exceeding theirs. In fact, what was written about the quality of the Myopia course in comparison to those others by some who had come across the ocean and had played it? Wasn't that it was among the best courses in the world? Before you ask, that article has already been posted several times on this thread.

NO, it makes PERFECT sense that Myopia was the best course in America at that time upon which the merits of the American game and the greatness of its courses could be evaluated against those overseas...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike Cirba,

What do you think?  Are we pretending? I mean other than pretending to be discussing Myopia with two guys who are sane and rational?

And talk about pretending....David imagines I was talking about him, TMac says everyone involved at Myopia was making things up...

How credible is an argument when it relies on top drawer guys like Bush in the 1890's and Weeks and others "making things up" and "obviously being wrong" despite not reading much of what at least Bush said because they don't have the records?  I mean, talk about some world class speculation....you don't see the records, but you can tell us what they say.

All I have really asked is two questions, have you seen the contemporaneous records and do you believe they exist? 

And yet they say we need to consider what we post. Wow.   

[DMoriarty]

Phillip,

Interesting speculation, but I am not trying to make any broad substantive point here.  I just want clarification on what exactly the quote said.

Because it doesn't make sense.  Read the sentence. "Perhaps no course illustrated so well the evaluation of the game in this country."  

I have no idea what that means.   I have even less idea when I read it in context with the rest of the quote.

____________________________________________

Mike Cirba,

What do you think?  Are we pretending? I mean other than pretending to be discussing Myopia with two guys who are sane and rational?

Neither of you can come up with a shred of contemporaneous evidence supporting the theory that AM&G laid out the course.  Yet you have been writing for months about how the answer lies in some mystery source material.  So, yes, you are pretending.

And talk about pretending....David imagines I was talking about him

I have no idea what this means, or what the hell you are talking about, and frankly I don't care.   I just wish you would quit making shit up about my perspective on all of this.  

How credible is an argument when it relies on top drawer guys like Bush in the 1890's and Weeks and others "making things up" and "obviously being wrong" despite not reading much of what at least Bush said because they don't have the records?  I mean, talk about some world class speculation....you don't see the records, but you can tell us what they say.

What you write has no relationship to the record as we know it.
- Bush wasn't writing in the 1890s.
- You throw around quotes, but those are YOUR WORDS not mine.   You and Mike are the ones making things up, not Bush or Weeks.  
- Don't have the records?  You mean as opposed to you and Mike, who DONT HAVE THE RECORDS, BUT PRETEND THEY EXIST.
- Your last sentence is just so bizarrely irrational that I am not even sure what to say.  You scold me for supposedly telling you what records say without having read them, but you seem to have forgotten that these are phantom records, one's that you made up.  I cannot tell you what they say any more than you can tell me what they say.  No one can really read pretend records.    

I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY INDICATION THAT RECORDS ADDRESSING THE CREATION OF THE COURSE EVEN EXIST.  IF THERE ARE SUCH RECORDS BRING THEM FORWARD.

All I have really asked is two questions, have you seen the contemporaneous records and do you believe they exist?  

 

See immediately above.

And yet they say we need to consider what we post. Wow.  

Yes, you really should. Please.

[Joe Bausch]

A full text view of the "Early Myopia" book by Forbes is not available at this site below, but they allow it to be searched for keywords.  Put in Leeds and you'll get a few hits.  Put in Campbell and nada results.

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89058150343

[Mike Cirba]

Joe,

Thanks for that link.

As I feared, it seems mostly about the Hunt and probably polo.   There are only 3 pages in the entire book where the word "golf" is even mentioned.

One of them, Page 16, also includes the names Appleton and Gardner on the same page, but not Merrill.

I'd conclude that this book is NOT the source of the story that Appleton, Gardner, and Merrill staked out the first course at Myopia in spring of 1894.


David,

The word used in the book is indeed "evaluation".   I'm not sure if Weeks made an error in transcribing Bush's written text.

[Mike Cirba]

Well, that seems to rule out the original 1941 history book being responsible for the Appleton, Gardner, and Merrill creationist story.

So, do we think that both John P. May for Golf Digest, and Edward Weeks, writing separately at different times, sort of like the 1,000 typing monkeys in a room coming up with Shakespeare if you leave them there long enough, simply made up the same myth with the same cast of players (except May included the course length of 2,050 yards), or do we think they got their information from internal club records?

[Tom MacWood]

John P. May wrote about Myopia, Chicago GC and Philadelphia CC in his little piece, with emphasis on little. Him traveling to those three cities to search each clubs' internal records is not very likely, in fact it is highly unlikely.

If Weeks had internal documents (dealing with the golf course) at his disposal we would have seen evidence of it in his book. There is no evidence in that book.
 

[DMoriarty]

The word used in the book is indeed "evaluation".   I'm not sure if Weeks made an error in transcribing Bush's written text.

Thanks.   I suspect it was a transcription error, else it makes little sense.  To me at least.

I hope you realize that Bush's words indicate that he was writing much later than 1894, and possibly later than 1908. 

Has anyone seen any references to 2nd hole as 455 yards before 1908?     I've gone through yardage listings I have and the first one I have seen was 1908, but it is possible I missed an earlier one.   
________________

As for May's piece, I think you are stretching past the point of breaking when you suggest that May and Weeks had come up with the AM&G story independently of each other.  It seems much more likely that, for whatever reason, the AMG story was the accepted legend at the club, and both were reporting that.   Isn't one of your main points here that the club should control to the research?   So if May called Myopia, then what do you suppose they would have told him.   Do you think Weeks hadn't even bothered to begin his history book, which would be published the next year?

[Mike Cirba]

David,

May included info apparently not known by Weeks...the course yardage of 2050 yards.

I'm trying to find out when May's article was first published...I have a reprint of it in a 1974 book.

[Tom MacWood]

In the acknowledgements the background information on Myopia is credited to Alexander N. Stoddard, publisher, Essex County Newspaper. Apparently the story came from a newspaper not internal documents.

David
I found it listed as 455 in 1905, and it was also 455 in 1911. The better question may be for how long period was it 455.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

"In the acknowledgements the background information on Myopia is credited to Alexander N. Stoddard, publisher, Essex County Newspaper. Apparently the story came from a newspaper not internal documents."

So you know for a fact that Stoddard was not a member at Myopia nor, if he was, on any of the boards giving him access to minutes, documents, etc...?

Just because he was the publisher of a newspaper doesn't mean that he himself went to libraries and sat through rolls of micrfiche, or worse, the actual papers themselves, in search of information on Myopia.   

[Tom MacWood]

"Carlton S. Young, manager, Myopia Hunt Club, for vintage photographs of Myopia, and Alexander N. Stoddard, publisher, Essex County Newspaper, for background information on Myopia."


Phil
Have you read the piece by John May?

[Phil_the_Author]

So you are stating that the story "did not come from internal club documents" because Stoddard was a newspaper editor even though Carlton S. Young, coincidentally named BEFORE Stoddard as a contributor, as MANAGER of the Myopia Hunt Club, was an equal contributor as well? I guess a club's manager wouldn't have access to minutes, documents, notes, etc...

First of all, why didn't you include Young's name and background when you first posted Stoddard's? You so often have complained about others leaving out portions of phrases when they've quoted from sources, yet here you left out this?

Tom, how can you even believe yourself on this one? You've got to admit your conclusion as to where the article's info came from is wrong based upon your Stoddard statement... By the way, where does it even infer that Stoddard wasn't a Myopia member?

[Tom MacWood]

"It was in 1894, however, that the club's first nine golf holes, measuring only 2,050 yards, were laid out by three club members, R. M. Appleton, T. Wattson Merrill and A. P. Gardner...

In 1896 Herbert C. Leeds, a club member and its best golfer, laid out on another site the nine holes that form the basis for today's course (the first nine holes were eventually abandoned). It was 2,930 yards long and was shortly afterwards altered again. Myopia proved such an outstanding test that despite the fact that it had only nine holes, it was chosen as the site of the 1898 Open...

...With each of the nine holes that existed in 1898 still included in the present course, Myopia is the model par excellence of the marriage between a great golfing tradition and sound course-design principles. Surely despite their spectacles, Myopia's designers were far-sighted."

John P May 1974

Was it common to list the yardage of a golf course in 1894?

I don't recall seeing the yardage listed of any Boston course in 1894 or 1895, the first mention I have found is 9/1896: "The Myopia club has the best links, covering 2836 yards; the Essex county club course is 2511 yards long, and the Country club 2334 yards."

[DMoriarty]

Phillip,

What is wrong with you?   Are you just trying to pick a fight?    TomM's representation of the source of the background information on Myopia appears to be spot on.  Almost a direct quote.  Apparently the club provided historic photographs.   So why are you lashing out at TomM?  And why did you similarly lash out at me yesterday for questioning what seems to be by a nonsensical sentence?  

Your behavior raises serious questions about your willingness and ability to deal with this sort of thing reasonably.  

____________________________________________

Tom MacWood,

Mays seems to be quite confused about a number of things.  
- So far as I know there was no "new site."  
- There was no eventual abandonment of the original nine hole course.  
- And Myopia was not chosen for the 1898 Open because it "proved such an outstanding test."  Rather, no one else wanted the Open.   As of the Annual meeting, not a single club had stepped up to take the Open by itself, and only one club (St. Andrews) would take it only if they were also given the Amateur.    There was even talk of providing a financial incentive to convince some USGA club to step up!