Willie Campbell & Myopia

[Tom MacWood]

A few things standout:

Weeks claims the Dacre Bush quote is from the club records, but it sure it doesn't read like contemporaneous club records or minutes, "...a meeting about March 1894...." It reads more a like a later remembrance.

Dacre Bush records make no mention of who designed the course.

Appleton, Merrill, Bush and Parker were the first golf committee.

Weeks has no idea if the 1894 course was redesigned prior to the US Open in 1898. He is speculating it was but I don't believe it was redesigned.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom P

Thanks for your IM and response No.297, most kind of you. Had you read my post instead of telling me what I meant you might have understood my comments and noted whom it was addressed to.
 
So let’s recap and see what your attack upon me is all about.

I was responding to David’s post No 288 and his line “Why read Appleton and friends into the equation in the absence of source material indicating they were involved?” My response was addressed to David not you.

I believed we should look at all, examine your evidence and these gentlemen actual knowledge and golfing abilities before making our mind up. But, no not you, you jump in believing the opposite. Why not look into your claim re these guys and see what is the basis of your information.

You responded unfairly and without proper cause, then you have the balls to IM me. I was trying to be fair and listen to your case, I should have just accepted David & Tom comments, but as is my way I like to hear from all sides.

I have no interest in the USA courses, as they are not my field of expertise but I am interested in Willie Campbell and his short life. He was a gifted golfer and more than an able designer, that was my interest.

Historical knowledge should be based upon what happened, everything else is totally irrelevant. History should only record the events as they unfold otherwise it is just worthless paper serving no purpose whatsoever.

So Tom, you got it wrong. 

Melvyn

[TEPaul]

"Appleton, Merrill, Bush and Parker were the first golf committee."


Tom:

Yes, I just corrected you on that!

Why did you say the first golf committee was Appleton, Merrill, GARDNER AND THOMAS then?

Do you actually expect to just rattle off all this misinformation day after day and expect that I need to be your editor without you even admitting to it?

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
There are two major differences between you and I. When I discover I've made an error I try to correct it as soon as soon as I discover it. And I share information with the group, unlike you who hide and distort information. A quick skim through this thread will show I have posted quite a few articles and other documents, while you have posted nothing. And I'm not alone actually there have been many others who have posted articles and such. Your approach to history is counterproductive.

[Tom MacWood]

"When he redesigned The Country Club he kept almost nothing from the original 6-hole course (one green and two tees, and no holes)."


Tom:

In that case, and since this thread is about Myopia (and Campbell) perhaps you should give us all a hole by hole description of that original nine hole course at Myopia compared to Leeds' "Long Nine" on which the 1898 US Open was played and as well the 1900 18 hole course on which three more US Opens were played by 1908.

You said on this thread that original nine was kept more or less intact! What does that mean? Is it more or is it less? Is it a lot more or a lot less? The only way to tell is for you to give us the details of all the holes of that original nine and the details of Leeds' 1898 Long Nine.

Weeks' refers to that original nine in his book as somewhat a matter of speculation. Do you think you can tell us more about it than Weeks did in his book? He also describes that original nine as an "imporvished links." Can you explain to us why that might not be accurate?

Also in the acknowledgements in Weeks book he mentioned some of the motivation for writing the book was that the famous links of Myopia had never been written about by the club. The famous links of Myopia by both the club and the world were always considered to be what Herbert C. Leeds did there with that golf course and not that original nine before Leeds came to Myopia.

TEP
Please tell us about the Long Nine, and how it differs from the original nine. And when it was changed and by whom.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Please tell us about the Long Nine, and how it differs from the original nine. And when it was changed and by whom."


Tom:

Hmmm, that's interesting. What made you change your mind about that in the last day or so?

I'd be glad to but why don't you go first so we can all see what you know about the differences? Hopefully you can do better with the detail than just saying you think it was "more or less intact." That really says a lot, don't you think? 
 

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
Nothing changed in my mind - I never acknowledged there were any changes. Leeds was not responsible for the Long Nine prior to 1898; the Long Nine of 1898 was the original nine. In my makeshift scrapbook, which starts in 1894 and runs through about 1917, there was nothing that indicated there were any changes to the course between 1894 and 1898. Again this is a case of Weeks not knowing all the facts and getting the story wrong.

[TEPaul]

"I never acknowledged there were any changes."

OK


"Leeds was not responsible for the Long Nine prior to 1898;"

I see. And what do you base that on? Could it be you've never been to Myopia; never looked at any material there and that you just automatically dismiss everthing Edward Weeks says and just create your own story since you don't know much of anything about the place and its history?


"the Long Nine of 1898 was the original nine."

The Long nine used some holes and at least three greens from the original nine but other than that a number of the original nine holes were changed by Leeds between 1896 and 1898 and three holes are unaccounted for. To understand why you pretty much need to go to Myopia and analyze the entire thing including land originally used and what it once was. This is a job and project noone can do from their PC, that's for sure!  

 
"In my makeshift scrapbook, which starts in 1894 and runs through about 1917, there was nothing that indicated there were any changes to the course between 1894 and 1898."


I see. YOUR MAKESHIFT SRCAPBOOK?!?   What is that; some attempt on your part to imitate Leeds' decades long scrapbook?

 

"Again this is a case of Weeks not knowing all the facts and getting the story wrong."


I see. Again, you have never been to this club and course, you have never seen any of their records, is that right? All you have done is find an old newspaper article about Campbell and now you are telling us that Edward Weeks, the editor or publisher of Atlantic Monthly, long time member of Myopia who researched that club and course over twenty six years with a number of other long time member historians, Janet Seagle of the USGA etc did not know the facts and got the whole story of Leeds and the golf course wrong?? That is rich, Tom MacWood, really rich!  

Where have I heard this before? You've never been to Merion either, never seen any of their material, you found an old article about seven years ago about Macdonald advising them; you thought you found something neither Merion nor anyone else knew (even though they always recorded Macdonald's advice) and you then gratuitously stated that Merion's history book by Tolhurst got everything wrong too or was like a third grader's paper compared to Moriarty's essay!?!?  

With all that I just don't know what to say about you, Tom, but the first thing that comes to mind is comical. If there is anyone left on this website or anywhere else willing to take you seriously with all this all I can say is that is very problematic----VERY problematic. Yours is definitely the Historical School of Maximum and Rampant Speculation!  

Don't worry about it, later today I will bail you out again with what is known about that original nine and what isn't and how it was different from Leeds' Long Nine!  

[Tom MacWood]

Don't worry about it, later today I will bail you out again with what is known about that original nine and what isn't and how it was different from Leeds' Long Nine!  

I look forward to that.

[TEPaul]

"I look forward to that."


Thank you, Tom, and by the way, congratulations for getting down to Mike Hurzdan's library and copying a few pages of Weeks's Myopia history book. To even attempt to follow what I am going to explain to you about the differences of the original 1894 nine and the Leeds 1898 Long Nine on which the 1898 US Open was played I suggest you go back to Mike Hurzdan's library and copy the entire chapter and very much including the map of the 1898 Long Nine and the description of what is known about the original nine. Otherwise without ever having been to Myopia, or seeing or understanding the land and the course there would be virtually no way you could follow me.

Actually, why don't you tell me when you have copied that section of the book and then I can get started with the comparison for you?

But I caution you----if you are just going to condemn every bit of information from the club and its history as wrong as you have so far without having any information yourself and as you have done with Merion, I am not going to be interested in doing this for you. But if you are really interested in learning something from me, I'll proceed. Do we have a deal there or don't we?

Just let me know. But again if you are just going to blanket condemn Edward Weeks and his Myopia history book as you did Tolhurst's and his Merion history book I am definitely not interested in pursuing this with you. Your call.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
Forget it.

[TEPaul]

TM
No problem. For you 'more or less intact' is a pretty detailed explanation of the differences between the original nine and Leeds 1898 "Long Nine." The fact that three holes are essentially unaccounted for, three didn't exist and most of the rest were changed in one way or another shouldn't really make much difference.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
Weeks claims the uphill holes (I believe those are #6,#7 & #8) were added by Leeds between 1896 and 1898, but he does not give his source, and he also admits the make up of the original nine is a matter of speculation. So in other words he has no idea what was replaced if anything in 1896-98. The three year time frame makes no sense either, and tells me Weeks has no idea when the changes were made, or if they were made at all.

Was the 1894 nine different than the 1898 nine? If so, what were the differences and when did the change take place?

[TEPaul]

"Was the 1894 nine different than the 1898 nine? If so, what were the differences and when did the change take place?"


Tom:

If you want my opinion on that and what my sources are, please see post #309 and respond to it again. If you want answers to your questions quoted on this post a response from you like the one in post #310 is not going to get them.

[Tom MacWood]

Actually, why don't you tell me when you have copied that section of the book and then I can get started with the comparison for you?

But I caution you----if you are just going to condemn every bit of information from the club and its history as wrong as you have so far without having any information yourself and as you have done with Merion, I am not going to be interested in doing this for you. But if you are really interested in learning something from me, I'll proceed. Do we have a deal there or don't we?

Just let me know. But again if you are just going to blanket condemn Edward Weeks and his Myopia history book as you did Tolhurst's and his Merion history book I am definitely not interested in pursuing this with you. Your call.

I have that section of the book, and I will not condemn every bit of information in Weeks book as wrong. I have no desire to condemn anyone or anything. My goal is to uncover the truth. If I have a contrary understanding or conclusion I will present supporting info, and I will do it without placing any special stipulations on you or anyone else. That way everyone interested can take the information and make up their own mind.

[TEPaul]

"I have that section of the book, and I will not condemn every bit of information in Weeks book as wrong. I have no desire to condemn anyone or anything. My goal is to uncover the truth. If I have a contrary understanding or conclusion I will present supporting info, and I will do it without placing any special stipulations on you or anyone else. That way everyone interested can take the information and make up their own mind."


Tom:

If you are interested in uncovering the truth then why don't you go ahead and try to explain what the detailed hole by hole differences were between Myopia's original 1894 nine and Leed's "Long Nine" on which the 1898 US Open was held?

Simply saying you think what Week's said about the original nine was wrong is really not enough. You need to tell us what it is that you think makes Weeks explanation about it wrong. What information are you using to make that determination? Simply saying that you do not know where he got his information really isn't enough and even you should understand that. I believe I can tell you where Weeks got his information and I believe I can even tell you why Weeks was only able to describe six holes of that original nine and apparently not even in the correct sequence or order.

Can you do that? If so let's see you do it.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom:

If you are interested in uncovering the truth then why don't you go ahead and try to explain what the detailed hole by hole differences were between Myopia's original 1894 nine and Leed's "Long Nine" on which the 1898 US Open was held?

Simply saying you think what Week's said about the original nine was wrong is really not enough. You need to tell us what it is that you think makes Weeks explanation about it wrong. What information are you using to make that determination? Simply saying that you do not know where he got his information really isn't enough and even you should understand that. I believe I can tell you where Weeks got his information and I believe I can even tell you why Weeks was only able to describe six holes of that original nine and apparently not even in the correct sequence or order.

Can you do that? If so let's see you do it.

TEP
I'm tired of playing games with you. I mistakenly thought you had information but you obviously have nothing to contribute. We will move  on without you.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
I'm tired of playing games with you. I mistakenly thought you had information but you obviously have nothing to contribute. We will move  on without you."


Tom:

No problem. If you're going to continue to assume the history book is wrong and Myopia has nothing on it because you depend solely on indirect newspaper articles and you've never bothered to check out Myopia then just move on without me with your assumption that the original nine was either intact in Leeds' "Long Nine" or 'more or less' the same.  

[Melvyn Morrow]

 "My goal is to uncover the truth" lets hope so or just what is the point.

Also, it must be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the Truth.

Melvyn

[Tom MacWood]

Here are the pages (including a map) from the club history dealing with the 'long nine'

[Tom MacWood]

Here are two articles from two Boston newspapers at the time of the 1898 US Open, one has the total yardage at 2863 and the other at 2960.

[Tom MacWood]

Here is an article from 1896 which lists the yardage at 2836. Leeds came to Myopia from The Country Club in mid- to late-summer 1896, as did Willie Campbell as the new pro. Perhaps TEP can explain exactly when the long nine was designed and by whom.

[TEPaul]

Nice going there Tom:

But for either yourself or others to follow all this you may need to include pages 32 and 33 too, and perhaps even 42 and 44 as well. Back to Hurzden's library, huh? Sorry about that.

The club records do reflect what Weeks wrote (even though he certainly did not included them all in his 150 page history book that dealt with other things in the majority than golf). The key is the so-called ridge holes were not done or in play until around 1897 (and there seems to be good reason for that). The other key is a few of the original nine did use portions of Hopkin's property (before it was purchased).

Are you beginning to get a glimmer of some off the differences between the original nine and the Leed's Long Nine yet?

[DMoriarty]

Nice going there Tom:

But for either yourself or others to follow all this you may need to include pages 32 and 33 too, and perhaps even 42 and 44 as well. Back to Hurzden's library, huh? Sorry about that.

The club records do reflect what Weeks wrote (even though he certainly did not included them all in his 150 page history book that dealt with other things in the majority than golf). The key is the so-called ridge holes were not done or in play until around 1897 (and there seems to be good reason for that). The other key is a few of the original nine did use portions of Hopkin's property (before it was purchased).

Are you beginning to get a glimmer of some off the differences between the original nine and the Leed's Long Nine yet?

What a joke you are.   Your only purpose here seems to be to pretend you know more than you do and to post about how much you are pretending not to tell us.   I have never imagined anyone could write so much about what they were refusing to write!

Newsflash.  No one cares.  No one here gives a damn what you pretend you know but won't post.  

If you want to contribute, fine.  If not, get lost.  Quit wasting bandwidth.

[Tom MacWood]

1896 - Weeks 1898 - Boston Advertiser 1898
380 -       390 -          397
423 -       427 -          428
100 -       130 -          135
250 -       280 -          235
300 -       400 -          396
250 -       285 -          235
400 -       350 -          380
510 -       490 -          510
250 -       176 -          240

Weeks was obviously confused. The largest change between 1896 and 1898 was the 5th, a down hill hole. The biggest discrepancy between Weeks nine and the 1898 US Open yardage is the 9th, a down hill hole.