This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.
"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.
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!
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: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.
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?